Talk:Extrajudicial killing

Template:Pbneutral Template:Groupthink --86.29.132.239 (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

USA

Why is the USA not mentioned? Other countries are often unashamed to kill their people outside legal settings, but just because the USA is sneaky about it, doesn't mean they don't do it. The perfect example is Richard Ricci, in addition to all the other mysterious deaths in prisons and all the many many police killings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.54.203 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Added Fred Hampton. Will take a look at Ricci now. Thanks. -moritheil^Talk 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The case for Ricci was settled out of court and the state did not acknowledge wrongdoing. [1] [2] Furthermore there has been no investigative journalism tying Ricci's death to actual intent by the police to kill him. As such we cannot use this example. -moritheil^Talk 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The state did not find itself responsible for a crime it committed... and you find that valid? 221.98.132.153 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention regarding routine executions carried out by the US military using drone planes in Afganistan and in Pakistan? http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/079/2005/en/bcffa8d8-d4ea-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/amr510792005en.html

Given that there has been 80 executions in the last 2 years, you'd think it would be serious enough to mention? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04drones.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.77.238 (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC) YES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.87.192.98 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added "United States" to the opening description, particularly at the end of the statement regarding the "status and rightnesss" of drone attacks. I feel it is important to include the words "United States" in this sentence and not to avoid accusing this country of something may not only be regarded as illegal, but a violation of human rights and the laws of war. Furthermore, this statement is very obviously regarding the attacks ordered by the US government and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to show bias by fuzzing out the name of one country while openly declaring others guilty of a crime. In fact, this statement does not go so far as to accuse the US of a crime, but does put it openly in question which rightly must be done. 221.98.132.153 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm by no means a U.S. gov't bootlicker, but is there any particular reason why lynching is mentioned in an extrajudicial article? If lynching is to be mentioned, then nearly every country ought to be mentioned with a "see lynching" link - provided of course, you can actually provide evidence for government officials acting outside of their capacity and engaging in or orchestrating lynchings. --222.154.232.126 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

We should use the singular and not the plural, which would be Extra-judicial killing. I also think that Extrajudicial killing, without the hyphen, would be acceptable, as would Extrajudicial execution. --Descendall (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Move completed. --Descendall (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with execution?

• I would oppose this. Extra-judicial killing, as used by the human rights community, is distinct from execution, which suggests the involvement of state actors using some process (usually public): this is the source of the term "Extra-judicial". Extra-judicial killing, on the other hand, is more like Forced disappearance (it to which it might more logically be merged). Either way, the term is very widely used to collect "disappearances" (which are usually secret), and organizationally sponsored murder (by state OR non-state actors) which are quite public. The article may need a re-write, and segemnts of it may need to be merged, but some (possibly short) article should remain here. My two cents. T L Miles (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My serious bad: the merge is with Summary execution: I'm assuming you want to merge Summary execution INTO Extra-judicial killing? This seems like a good idea, but can't a "Summary execution" be a judicial (if truncated) outcome? Either way, it seems that Summary execution could re-direct here without harm or undue confusion.T L Miles (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• IANAL but I think that, by definition, a summary execution is one that totally circumvents the judicial oversight. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I generally disagree with the merging of related but distinct articles. I agree with this merge however. The way I see it there are multiple semi-related kinds of organized of semi-organized killings:

kind of killing	actor	notes
mob hits	organized crime	With a few notable exceptions, always performed in the private sector, for the private sector. Clearly totally illegal, so no need to mention that they are extrajudicial -- which means outside the law as opposed to illegal.
summary execution	state actors	Generally only performed during martial law -- shooting looters for instance, when public safety precludes taking the time to take them into custody. highly controversial. authorized. not clandestine.
authorized assassination 007 liscenced to kill	state actors	totally authorized. totally clandestine. legality not always clear, depends on country. Clearly illegal under US law.
decapitation	state actors	totally authorized. typically this term is used during wartime, for targeting the leaders of the enemy country -- treating them as military targets, even if they are technically civilians. sometimes clandestine. sometimes acknowledged afterwards. legality not always clear, depends on country. The USA made fifty decapitation attempts in 2003, against Saddam and his most senior leadership cadre. The only success claimed was "Chemical Ali" -- but this claim was in error. Dozens or hundreds of civilians were killed in these decapitation attempts. The US military was authorized to launch depatitation attempts without further explicit civilian authorizaton, if they anticipated killing no more than 30 civilian bystanders.
extra-judicial killing extrajudicial execution	state actor	Clandestine Organized Not officially authorized, to preserve plausible deniability. Examples Project Phoenix, the Janjaweed. Perps generally "off-duty" state personnel, acting on unofficial orders, or on hints, or on tacit hints that legal means won't work, and they should do whatever they can to take care of matters. Sometimes attempts are made to make the killings look like the work of non-state volunteers. Arguably also clearly illegal(?)
canonical vigilantes	volunteers	semi-organized no state involvement. clearly illegal
manson-style	lunatics	Organized, kind of. clearly illegal. I am including this in this list just to distinguish these killing from lone gunmen style murders.

• Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just a perception, but the tone of this article implies disapproval of the topic at hand. Even linking to Human Rights implies a judgment on the legality/illegality of the practice. Recommend the article stick to the facts -- extrajudicial execution is merely what it says: killing someone outside of the court process. Certainly, the spectre of Argentinian "forced dissapearances" is haunting. However, if one encounters a terrorist with his hands on the trigger of a nuclear weapon, would this be a good time to get on the telephone and discuss how quickly a warrant might be issued? Suggest a revision, eliminating the emotion from what is admittedly a highly-controversial and politically-charged topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulyemyet (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree we should stick to the facts.

• I question whether self-defense -- which using deadly force against a bomber with his finger on the trigger would be -- should be identified as an "extrajudicial killing". Isn't self-defense covered by the law? Mind you if that bomber is holding a dead-man switch, shooting him or her would not be self-defense, but suicide.

• I don't understand your concern with referencing human rights groups. Could you cite specific passages where you think citing these references is a problem?

• Beyond your concern with the use of human rights references, do you have other concerns? Could you cite some specific passages?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also oppose to this merging. Table by Geo Swan shows complexity of that.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. This should be merged with assassination, not execution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not use examples where it's most common?

If it is most common here, "Extrajudicial killings and death squads are most common in the Middle East (mostly in Palestine and Iraq), Central America, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Kashmir several nations or regions in Equatorial Africa, Jamacia, Kosovo, many parts of South America, Chechnya, Russia, Uzbekistan, North Ossetia, parts of Thailand and in the Philippines," why is the United Kingdom, one of the few places in the world it apparently isn't "most common," one of the five examples given? As you have about 50 countries to pick from where it is "most common," the examples should all be from these "most common" countries or an explanation given as to why it's not "most common" in Northern Ireland, yet Northern Ireland was picked as an example. In particular the unsourced comments about England and Wales. --69.226.108.255 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

was this page written by mugs?

the murder of damilola taylor is clearly not an extra-judicial killing, and certainly does not fall into the definition of what an extra judicial killing is at the beginning of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.33.15 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is a mess. It reeks of impartiality, there are numerous grammatical and spelling errors, and it just meanders aimlessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.45.96 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Reeks of impartiality" - what a wonderful phrase! And from someone who complains of grammatical and spelling errors, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.249.132 (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help clean it up, then. -moritheil^Talk 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a hyphen?

Extrajudicial is a 100% real word. Is anyone opposed to me renaming this? MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Secret societies

I've read some strange stories about killings that had apparently been ordered by secret societies. These alleged killings are usually classified as extrajudicial because the secret societies are often thought to play an important role within the government itself, which ends up covering up the crimes because of its partnership with these hidden organizations. ADM (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an allegation in Italy that is playing out in the press even now. Maybe someone good with Italian can find some sources. -moritheil^Talk 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I've added- --86.29.132.239 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Litvenko

It seems odd that Russia would be cited as often using extra-judicial execution when only one example is cited while countries like the USA and Israel who have active policies of extra judicial execution and even publicly announced rewards for this are not mentioned. The lead says countries that commonly commit extra judicial execution and to assume that one death constitutes this when probably every state with even minor strategic interests does this infrequently ... while simultaneously excluding countries that clearly and publicly do it many times a year reeks of bias and cow-towing to Western propaganda on human rights issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.205.156 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

sanitization of Mossad/Israel information

Twice now that I have caught, IPs are removing information regarding Mossad/Israel from the article. There are several cn tags in the article, so it is suspicious that only these are being removed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

We've got an editor trying to apply the category Category:Extrajudicial killings to the Osama bin Laden article. His justification is that killings need not be "unlawful" to qualify as extrajudicial. Those who care to weigh in on either side are welcome. I'm posting this here because I see that an anon IP tried adding his killing to this article though without success. Rklawton (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that is a complete misrepresentation, the justification is that there was no judicial proceeding or legal process in the killing of Osama bin Laden, what makes it an extrajudicial killing as the Judiciary was not involved. IQinn (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it's defined in this article. Rklawton (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's how it is defined. Did you also notice that WP articles in general are unreliable and this one in addition has a handful of tags that tell you that this article is unreliable? IQinn (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article starts with "An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process." - What part of this definition does not match up with the killing of Bin Laden? - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The "legal process" was the state of military action in which one country had engaged, with the recognition by multiple other countries that said country had a right to pursue him. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that an international(?) court of law had sentenced him to death? Which one, if I may ask? - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't say that at all. The definition says judicial proceeding or legal process. There was a legal process that led to the circumstances in which he was killed, as mentioned. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

United States section

None of the available sources that I could find described the events as "Extrajudicial". Booth was resisting arrest, Dillinger was fleeing, Diallo's wallet was mistaken for a handgun. The sources cited need to make mention that the deaths were "Extrajudicial" or "without trial" etc. or else it's original research to call them "Extrajudicial killing". V7-sport (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The references actually have to use the words "extrajudicial killing" or "without trial"? Doesn't seem quite right, and seems to be a leap to call it "original research". The man who shot Booth was reprimanded for disobeying orders. Dillinger was fleeing, but we also know police can't shoot someone in the back like that, as nobody was in any immediate danger. I'll admit, Diallo probably doesn't belong in this group. The officers were acquitted, I was just trying to add a more modern case. I can look for another. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Material about JW Booth re-worded to reflect situation as per additional reference. The troops were ordered to take Booth alive, and they were on the verge of capturing him. Booth was not threatening the man who shot him nor anyone else, and he was not in a condition to put up active resistance. The soldier who shot Booth was arrested for violating orders. Therefore, I submit it is an acceptable example of extrajudicial killing, as defined in the first line, as "the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process." Boneyard90 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, an example that springs to mind is Operation Vengeance which was, technically "the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding." There were other factors involved though, like being in the middle of a war. If Boston Corbett violated orders and was arrested, wouldn't that be "murder" (regardless of whether or not they let him go afterwords) or resisting arrest (as David Herold came out of the barn and surrendered)? This is why I put up the tag; there is a legal (and I would argue "moral") difference between extrajudicial killing and murder, unlawful killing, etc. If there's any dispute or confusion we are supposed to go by reliable sources which make it clear that it was an "extrajudicial killing" by using that or similar phraseology.V7-sport (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In Herold's case, it's true he "surrendered", but sources state that one officer risked his life by going in the barn and dragging him out, so I would suspect that Herold was nearly overcome or disoriented by smoke, etc. The plan was the same for Booth. They were going to drag him out when he was unable to resist. Booth wasn't actively resisting arrest; just because the police order you to come out of, say, hiding in the closet, doesn't mean they can start putting bullets through the door if you don't. Finally, Corbett wasn't arrested for murder, all sources state he was arrested for violating orders. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid this section of the article is original reseach based on an incorrect reading of the definition in wikipedia. IMO, the definition must draw a clear distinction between the notions of "government employee" and "government authority". Specifically "extrajudicial killing" refers to the violation of the concept of separation of powers in the state (and wikipedia must clearly say so). In particular, when a policeman kills a man on the run just because he does not like his black ass, it is murder. But when there is an unspoken arrangement when a secret service or whoever elese is given carte blanche to kill Albanian spies, pinkos, communistas, etc., ie., when this sanction does not come from the Judicial branch, then this becomes "extrajudicial". The wikipedia definition is actually phrased to this end: "killing of a person by governmental authorities", i.e., not just by any trigger-happy soldier or policeman.

When you apply this test (whether the killing was an act of the violation of the separation of powers), it is clearly seen that none of the cases listed in the section apply. For example, someone just above wrote: "The soldier who shot Booth was arrested for violating orders." But contrary to this person conclusion, the solder in question the soldier acted against the government authority which issued the orders. In other words, a "rogue cop" is not equal to "extrajudicial killer". Lovok Sovok (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, that there should be distinction when the killing is done by a person or by an authority. Keep in mind that this distinction is negated if the person responsible is not called to account by the authority. The authority becomes complicit in extra-judicial killing if it does not hold its personell accountable for murders. 126.210.119.241 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll concur with that explanation, and remove the material about Booth and Dillinger. What about the Bonnie and Clyde example. Should that go, too? Boneyard90 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, to the concerned editors, how do you feel about certain attacks against Native Americans in the 19th century, such as the Wounded Knee Massacre? I believe in this case, and others, there was no state of war or conflict, and indeed the two sides were under treaty. However, it was generally understood that military officers were allowed to act at their own discretion when handling suslect "hostile" Indians. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the OR template as it's Bonnie and Clyde. I still think that any references here should go back to something that states, or closely resembles "extrajudicial killings".V7-sport (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean, but I would subscribe under an opinion that it is not a wikipedian's job to decide whether a particular incident was an ExK (like it is with bin Laden above). The only argument to be accepted is that some expert applies the term to an event. (Even not a famousmouth political commentator, but an expert politopogist/lawyer. People tend to abuse strong words, in propaganda, and other flash purposes.) Lovok Sovok (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that accounts and analyses on these historical events rarely apply modern legal terms or modern concepts of justice to past events. Can we say that extrajudicial killing never happened in the US? I would think it's great if true. However, I have read accounts where a mob lynched someone in view of local police who did not try to stop it. Would that count? I'm of the opinion that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.... But the bin Laden case (above) shows how many ways one can interpret a case. I believe as long as a group of editors can come to an amicable consensus, a case under consideration can or should be included. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that police error or misconduct is different from pre-meditated state actions. I beleive that US drone attacks do qualify - apparently so does one expert: "As the U.S. accelerates this campaign, we hear from UN special rapporteur for extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, who suggests that U.S. citizens may be asleep at the wheel, oblivious to clear violations of international law which we have real obligations to prevent (or at the very least discuss)." http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/09/indefensible-drones/. And how can we go without mentioning the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, and the extensive covert program behind it, and the President's bald claim he has the right to order the murder of anybody he choses, any time, for any reason - http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/10/assassinating-bin-laden/ Mattlove1 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Drone attacks don't count for extrajudicial killing, because (the unusual case of al-Awlaki notwithstanding) the targets aren't generally entitled to judicial proceedings. Same with bin Laden. He wasn't assassinated, he was killed in action. And if the US military had hit him with a drone attack, there would have been nothing illegal or unethical there either. If the Allies could have put a sniper in Berlin to shoot Adolph Hitler from a mile away, would that have been justified? A drone attack is like a sniper, with more bang and more distance. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The drone attacks are also responsible for collateral deaths for which no reprimands, disciplinary actions, or apologies have been issued. Essentially, the target and anyone within the blast radius is sentenced to death--including people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time--and the goverment is allowing this to happen. 126.210.119.241 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Earliest cases

I'm thinking we should be able to find earlier examples of extrajudicial killing cases. I seem to recall that, Moses had his brother form a death squad to kill those who opposed him. But that might make a better example of a death-squad. Although, one could argue that a death squad's work *is* extrajudicial killing (or terrorism). OK, so I'm willing to bet someone is going to make me look up the verses dealing with this - but I'm rather hoping someone will pick up the ball as I've been kinda busy lately. Rklawton (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So, does extrajudicial mean illegal?

So, does extrajudicial mean illegal? I haven't kept track of this article during the last couple of years. I notice the lead paragraph clearly states extrajudicial meant illegal.

But does it?

The USA does not consider the captives it holds in Guantanamo and Bagram to be "Prisoners of War". Under US law criminal suspects can be held, until tried, and afterwards too, if convicted. Under US law enemy soldiers can be held. But the captives held in Guantanamo, are held based on the President's authority, not based on any law, so while it seems fair to call that "extrajudicial" the legality of that detention is unclear. Mind you, IANAL, but I think it would only be correct to call that detention illegal if the SCOTUS ruled it was illegal. Alternatively, the SCOTUS may rule that the President does have that authority.

This article shouldn't be US-centric. Geo Swan (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha. NPOV, worldwide biase... United Nations located in New York City after winning over Axis Powers should be located in the Arctic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.179.38 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Execution of Nguyen Van Lem a poor example

The iconic photo of the execution of Nguyen Van Lem is a poor illustration of an extrajudicial killing. He was summarily executed as a spy, a point attested to in the article on Summary Execution.

Is the article asserting that Summary Execution is a subset of Extrajudicial Killing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffr (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

North Korea

I am surprised that they don't appear in this article, seeing as they put any political opponents in concentration camps, and burn people in sports stadiums for assassination attempts that never happened. BoredomJS (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazi holocaust and other genocides

The German government executed/killed a vast number of people "extrajudicially" during WW II, and before. These were not civilian collateral damage of war action, rather they were individually executed by order of the Nazi government. The word used for this on Wikipedia (see holocaust) is flatly "murder." So why that use of murder there, and not here? Either use the word "murder" in both places, or neither place. The word "murder" is used in the Katyn massacre article, ordered by Stalin as an extrajudicial killing. Which types of extrajudicial killings by governments are NOT murders?

Yes, I realize that this forces the average Wikipedia editor to think more carefully about what is meant by the word "legal" (since "judicial" is used in the title here, partly as a proxy for "legal"). But that's a good thing. Anybody who thinks about that question for long will come out more of an anarchist, since the definition basically in all cases boils down to "who is best armed" (or who won the last conflict) After that, the "judicial" motif is seen to be something of a show function. See "show-trial." A judge is a lawyer in black robe (or wig or something), who is backed by force of arms. That is all.

Is presense of such a "judge" or show-figure, important? Can you tell a "real judge" from a fake judge? [Is it the wig?] From whence comes the "authentic authority" (if there be such a thing) of this "judge"? Any judge? Or president? Or State? Difficult question, no? It can't be from pure democracy because not all judges are picked democratically (even indirectly) and in any case, it is force of arms that decides on voting boundaries, so basically we're back to force of arms.

But the use of "murder" when it comes to deliberate killing of persons, hangs upon all these questions. Winners hang losers, yes? The fact that they won is what doesn't make it murder. If they lose LATER (ie. the Nazis), I presume that makes it murder, in retrospect? SBHarris 23:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixing dead links

I've fixed some dead links. For one of them, only the second page of the originally-linked article seems to exist any more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61549-2004Mar15_2.html The siamexpat link is dead and I cannot find another source for it. The link may be of low-value since it appears to be unrecoverably dead and doesn't include information about what was contained in the linked site. All I've done is fix links - mostly I haven't considered their validity or usefulness, other then the sanity checks above.--Otus scops (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Found another source for the first page of this article. --Otus scops (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

world order

When can you start talking about "extrajudicial" in human history? WW1? WW2? What about earlier ages and civilizations? When has someone accepted human rights and division of world into jurisdictions with governments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.179.38 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The word only first came about in 1630, according to Merriam-Webster. So you wouldn't use it before that, in real time. Looking back, I guess it works for anyone killed by the governing class without court involvement. Governments and states go back to the Neolithic. The history of human rights is too large for one sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Needed Killin'

Where do you all think the infamous "He Needed Killin' law" should go? Is it just an urban legend? If not than does it fall under the concept of an extrajudicial killing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)