Once Upon a Time, Terrorists Had Some Standards
Now, unbound by rules of war or decency, they happily slaughter
innocents.
By Walter Laqueur
Walter Laqueur is the author of "A History of Terrorism"
(Transaction, 2001).
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-
laqueur5sep05,1,3786585.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary


Once upon a time terrorists had a code of honor; the targets
selected for assassination were kings, ministers, generals or police
chiefs.

When in 1904 a group of Russian revolutionaries went out on a
mission to kill a certain grand duke, the action was canceled at
considerable risk to their own lives because the duke traveled with
his wife and his small children and there was the danger that
innocents would be hurt. This historical incident inspired Albert
Camus to write one of his best known plays.

Contemporary terrorism has not just become indiscriminate, there
seems to be a particular temptation to single out innocents, partly
no doubt because these are much easier targets than well-guarded
public figures. Terrorists, like the Chechens who took
schoolchildren as hostages, have persuaded themselves that there are
no innocents — after all, children will grow up and some of them
could be soldiers or policemen one day.

Fanatics cannot accept moral taboos for both ideological and
practical reasons. The Russian revolutionary of 1904 had no
hesitation to kill a leading figure of the hated regime, but he also
believed that killing was a mortal sin. The terrorist of 2004 does
not feel such compunction; murder has become not only permissible
but a holy duty. In his world, infidels (and also many of his own
coreligionists) are fair game.

Religious fanaticism is of importance in this context, but it is not
the only key to understanding growing barbarity. The murder of more
than 20 children in the Israeli village of Maalot in 1974 was
committed not by Islamist radicals but the Democratic Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, a secular, self-styled left-wing group.

Over the centuries, rules and laws of war have developed, but
terrorists feel that they cannot possibly accept them. It would be
suicidal from their point of view if they were to wear uniforms or
other distinguishing marks as international law demands. The essence
of their operations rests on hiding their identities and on
indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

On the other hand, they insist that when captured they should enjoy
all the rights and benefits accorded to prisoners of war, that they
be humanely treated, even paid wages as prescribed by the Geneva
Convention. When regular soldiers do not stick to the rules of
warfare — when they kill or maim prisoners, carry out massacres,
take hostages or commit crimes against civilians — they will be
treated as war criminals. Terrorists, on the other hand, are firmly
convinced that they are not bound by these rules.

Will governments continue to accept these principles of asymmetric
warfare? There is not much room for optimism. It is unlikely that
governments will be impeded in their defense by laws and norms
belonging to a bygone (and more humane) age.

But is indiscriminate murder of innocents not self-defeating? Will
it not lead to the isolation of the perpetrators? In this respect,
too, one should not overrate the extent and effect of moral
revulsion. Standards of human rights (and the value of human lives)
are not the same in all societies.

Sometimes there will be an outcry, as in the case of the two French
journalists held hostage; the pope and the U.N. secretary-general
will appeal, as well as many others. But who outside Nepal protested
when 12 poor Nepalese workers were murdered in Iraq last week?

Our contemporary terrorists are neither diplomats nor experts in
public relations; they know that they have and will retain, whatever
they do, a certain amount of support within their own communities,
and more they do not need. They do not feel restraints — except
perhaps political expediency. And thus the descent to barbarism
continues.