Posted by admin | Posted in Peru | Posted on 19-04-2009
Tags: commission, human_rights_violations, Peru, political_violence, reconciliation
Are extreme measures sometimes justified when combating terrorism?
For a change I’m not actually talking about Bush, whose extreme measures, in my opinion, don’t seem to have combated anything. Earlier this year the ex president of Peru, Fujimori was convicted of human rights violations, which included 2 massacres. His defence was that it was needed to fight terrorism. What makes this case hard to judge for many people is that Peru was in a dire state when he came to power with terrorist groups running much of the country and actually triumph effectively ended terrorism in country.
So, in cases such as these can brutal tactics be justified?
Good question, nice perspective. The answer is no, brutal tactics from either side can never be justified. Retaliation begats retaliation. Vengence breeds vengence. Terrorism propagates terrorism. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter. Excessive force only results in the marginalization of the minority. This causes civil unrest, hence more violence. It solves nothing, The only purpose it does serve is to provide the ‘extremists’ / army with yet another martyr.
The Price of Gold / Human Rights Violations In Peru / Video
|
|
Tolerating abuses: Violations of human rights in Peru (An Americas Watch report) … |
|
|
Peru: Presumption of guilt : human rights violations and the faceless courts in Peru (Human Rights Watch/Americas  … |
|
|
Peru: Violations of Human Rights in the Emergency Zones $3.00 … |
