6 ms·
Having NGOs conduct killing on behalf of the government is a tried-and-true method of counterinsurgence (South American paramilitary death squads for example).
by mcantelon 14y ago
Having NGOs conduct killing on behalf of the government is a tried-and-true method of counterinsurgence (South American paramilitary death squads for example). The plausible deniability introduced by working through a proxy allows the government to conduct more politically risky operations (including false flag attacks if public support is waning). Criticizing the government becomes riskier. And, if not held in check, the paramilitary elements will inevitably use their power for their own objectives.
- fpp 14y agoWell said - similar happened in Europe during the 1970s with people being classified as (left-wing) terrorists (and a few might have certainly been) and being "transported" between countries by so-called freelancers - TMK quite a few did not survive the travel and definitely no obituaries in the press.
- ra 14y agoThere's a great movie set in this context, "Munich"
- cmdkeen 14y agoIt was also in the context of some European countries not co-operating with other countries to arrest/extradite terrorist suspects because they wanted a quiet life where terrorist groups didn't attack their interests.
- toomuchcoffee 14y agoCan you enumerate a few examples, please?
- lusr 14y agoWhat puzzles me is why the person delegating authority is not considered responsible for the actions of those whom authority has been delegated to. Authority was delegated, not responsibility.
- runjake 14y agoBecause these actions are normally clandestine. Hence the plausible deniability.
- RyanMcGreal 14y agoPlausible deniability is a velvety layer of insulation between the people who carry out the acts and the person elected or appointed to take responsibility. By the time the denials, obfuscations, delays, hand-wiping, shoulder-shrugging and tied-hands miming is done, the guilty parties are gone and the trail is so convoluted that it becomes very difficult to prove that the leader was anything more than ignorant of what went on. That feigned ignorance, in turn, provides lots of grist for righteous indignation about unauthorized overreach by lone rogue actors, partisan charges that the opposition is trying to muckrake and blah blah blah. Political abstractions may be leaky, but they hold water long enough to get the job done.
- lusr 14y agoRight but if you create a layer of plausible deniability you are still responsible for the consequences. If the head honcho says "Yeah you can kill the people on the list I haven't seen" I don't understand why seeing the list is a requirement for them to be responsible. Otherwise, what is the point of them authorising the act? May as well not bother.
- RyanMcGreal 14y agoIt's the difference between being held responsible (politically, maybe, eventually) for a botched policy execution and being held responsible legally for a criminal act. Plausible deniability shields you from the former for long enough that the political news cycle has stopped caring and shields you almost absolutely from the latter.