THE war on terror is changing the law of international assassinations. For decades, nations of the world have condemned extrajudicial executions, contending that even the worst criminals are entitled to due process and fair trial. The recent failure of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, however, raises the question whether exceptions are emerging under which states may lawfully execute, without any judicial process, the rank and file of terrorist organisations.

No such exception has been written into international law -- not yet. Israel is the most articulate proponent of the view that members of terrorist organisations are

lawful targets for execution without trial. israel's advocacy of extrajudicial executions is most intriguing for it has otherwise outlawed capital punishment in its legal system. Close behind israel is the United States that hesitates to openly embrace the israeli view of assassinations. And yet for all practical purposes, it seems to condone such executions. For it was the United States -- the lone star on the Security Council -which actively opposed the resolution that denounced the assassination of Sheikh Yassin. (11 members voted for the resolution, 3 abstained.)

in vetoing the resolution, the United States was not posing as a morally blind ally of israel. it was serving its own interests. Since the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration has been openly advocating the killing of terrorists -of course without a trial. in Afghanistan and iraq, U.S. special operations snipers have actually killed several foreign nationals in forced and staged encounters. The most theatrical assassination occurred in 2002 when a CiA-operated pilotless plane, flying over the Yemeni desert, killed six terrorists speeding in a car below. Deputy

Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called it a "very successful tactical operation."

in defending their lawless killings, israel and the United States take a confederate stand. They vow not to let their citizens and soldiers be killed by known terrorists who plan or perpetrate acts of murder and mayhem. Calling it active self-defence or lawful interception, they argue that international law should not preclude executing terrorists determined to harm their citizens and soldiers.

Despite their united stand, israel promotes a much broader exception to the rule than does the United States. israel would kill not only persons poised to commit terror, but would execute even their spiritual and political leaders. These leaders are lawful targets, srael argues, because they, by

their rhetoric and blessing, father and favour a culture of violence that spawns suicide bombers and other perpetrators of violence. in contrast, the United States pleads for a far narrower exception under which killing a terrorist leader is legally excusable when the leader has actually masterminded specific acts of murder.

From a legal viewpoint, however, even narrow exceptions may hurt the innocent. Any extrajudicial killing, no matter how narrowly conceived, cuts off fundamental human rights enshrined in universal treaties. For example, the defendant is slain without a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. He is given no opportunity to impeach the evidence or witnesses against him. The killer state is accountable to no defense attorney, no jury, and no court. it simply says to the world: "Take my word. The man just executed was a terrorist!" Given the unreliable intelligence about iraq's weapons of mass destruction, not even a superpower can assure the world that its decision to kill without a trial is based on irrefutable evidence of criminality.

The israeli version of extrajudicial executions is even more prob-

lematic as it leads to sheer oppression. First, it shatters all distinctions between terrorists and freedom fighters. No matter how oppressive are the conditions of servitude, occupation, and even genocide (Sabra and Shatila), the oppressed have no right to use force in return. For any organisation of the oppressed that advocates the use of force as a means of liberation will fall under the definition of terrorism and, as such, its entire leadership would be a lawful target for extrajudicial executions.

Furthermore, there is the unintended domino effect. if international law opens the door to lawless executions, national systems will be emboldened to go even further. Already, encounter killings are common in many countries, including Nepal, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka. The United States Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, issued in 2003, reports how indian security forces have faked encounters to justify extrajudicial executions. While some victims were Muslim and Sikh terrorists, others were Dalits demanding fair

wages. in Brazil, street children have been routinely killed as security risks and leaders of indigenous populations have been executed for demanding a better demarcation of their reservation lands to stop illegal encroachments.

Perhaps realising the inherent perils embodied in the arguments for the Sheikh's assassination, the eleven members of the Security Council rightfully stood behind an undiluted prohibition against extrajudicial executions.

Dr. Khan is a professor at Washburn University