Legal Theory
Dad of Murdered Journalist Says New Legal Model is Needed for War on Terror
Posted Sep 11, 2009 6:01 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Just as the global community worked together to eliminate piracy on the high seas in the 19th century and created the Geneva Conventions in response to World War II, countries need to cooperate to create a new legal structure for dealing with terrorism, says the father of a murdered journalist.
In an open letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that is reprinted in the Wall Street Journal today, Judea Pearl calls for a specialized judicial system that will address specific issues common to such organized violence against others, including a desire for publicity.
He is the father of Daniel Pearl. The Wall Street Journal reporter was beheaded in 2002 on footage that was broadcast on the Internet, after he was reportedly kidnapped in Pakistan by terrorists while working for the newspaper.
A lengthy National Journal magazine article discusses the positive and negative effects that the widespread availability on the Internet today of photos and video footage provided by non-journalists can have concerning such atrocities.
Earlier related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: "Human Rights Groups Suspect Torture in Death of Terrorism Suspect"
ABAJournal.com: "Pearl’s Widow Sues Major Pakistan Bank"
Christian Science Monitor: "Pakistan foils three suspected terror plots in two days"
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
J.D.
Sep 12, 2009 7:58 PM CST
Unfortunately, Obama completely dismisses this man’s concerns about his murdered son. Mr. Pearl’s first recommendation is this:
“First and foremost, [our government] must proclaim unequivocally that America is still committed to the war on terror.”
But just a month ago, Obama declared that there is no war on terror. As the White House explained: “The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism.’”
Mr. Pearl also speaks extensively about a global community coming together to confront the threat that Obama doesn’t believe exists.
Unfortunately again, the Obama Admin believes that this is not “a global war.”
It seems Mr. Pearl will not get what he seeks from the current administration. He’ll have to wait until 2012.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Sep 13, 2009 12:11 AM CST
Unfortunately, we cannot afford to send the Marines every time a U.S. national travels to a dangerous place and gets into trouble. This is a notion that pretty much went out with the 1950s.
Flag this comment
charles pace
Sep 14, 2009 1:56 AM CST
Can we even define “victory” in the “war” on terror? When UAL #93 went down on 11 Sept. 2001 near Shanksville, PA, all the passengers, including the terrorists, could claim that they were victorious. The hijackers accomplished what they set out to do. The hijacked struck the “first blow” in the war on terror. The problem is, the plane still ended up in the field. That outcome is not victory. It’s not even a step on the path to victory. It’s just death and destruction. Nothing more. Nothing less. When President Obama said there the USA would not conduct a “war” on terror, he was not saying that we should capitulate. What he was saying is that we are not going to apply conventional measures of victory or success in warfare to assess how to bring the death and destruction to an end.
Flag this comment
MPerry
Sep 14, 2009 11:16 AM CST
Mr Pace,
You are wrong when you state that it was not a step on the path to victory when the passengers of UAL Flight# 93 fought back and brought the plane crashing into the ground in rural Pennsylvania rather than the White House or the Pentagon. In the death and destruction of hundreds and a single plane was granted to lives of thousands and the functioning of the American government. The adage that “Freedom isn’t Free” may sound trite and hackneyed…but it is true. The goal of the terrorists is to end our way of life and replace it with their own. We are way past a time when we could have avoided this conflict. We are engaged in it daily through the actions of our military, our politicians, our courts and each of our citizens. Each day that we remain free, each day that our nation manages to stand for the concepts embodied in the Constitution is one more step on the path towards victory.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Sep 15, 2009 1:24 AM CST
I agree more with M Perry. The hijackers of Flight 93 were blocked from accomplishing their mission. The passengers of Flight 93 did prevail in every military sense. That they had to is still cause for regret. There are times when “victory” is lost in a sea of blood.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.