Reply #32: Obvious problems with the subjectivity of the Koh Doctrine [View All]

[Jim Lane]

You assert that Cariles "is in no way an imminent threat to Cuba...." There are two major problems here.

First, who decided that that was the standard? When Timothy McVeigh was executed, he was clearly not an imminent threat, what with being in captivity. That case isn't directly analogous, because it was a purely internal criminal matter. I cite it to show that some people wouldn't accept the view that a terrorist who retires can thereby gain lifetime immunity from being killed in retribution for his past actions. Koh's statement constitutes the unilateral pronunciamento of the world's most militarized country. His purported standard wasn't adopted by the world community. It was trotted forth by one government that found it politically expedient to do so.

Second, even assuming that the "imminent threat" standard were the governing one, it wouldn't be self-executing. You think that Cariles wouldn't meet that standard. At least one poster in this thread apparently disagreed. More to the point, what if Cuba were to disagree? If a Cariles-type terrorist who had attacked the United States were living abroad in comparative retirement, there would be plenty of American politicians howling for his head, brushing off any claims about his current level of (in)activity and pointing out that he could be engaged this very minute in preparing to murder our citizens. Here again, the decision was made solely by the United States, acting behind closed doors as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.