第１７回　NATIVE講師によるWORKSHOP報告（７月９日） / 参加者６８名

[今週のマテリアル]

<first half>

今回の前半は、「英会話サークル・スクールのgood points and bad points」についてディスカッションしていただきたいと思います。
E's clubの運営が始まって１０か月ほどが経ちます。さらに参加者のみなさんにとって、有意義で楽しいグループにしたい
と幹事・スタッフともに常に考えております。
そこで、今回は、「こうすればもっと楽しくなる！」「あそこの英会話サークル・スクールではこんなことをやっていたよ」
などの改善点や御経験談などを英語でディスカッションしながら挙げていただけませんか？
（新人の方が多いサークルは状況次第で自己紹介や今までの英語学習方法紹介の時間を長めにお取りください）

【進め方】
（１）４～６人のグループになる。
（２）自己紹介（５分ほど）
（３）「ご意見記入シート」を当日お配りし、それに沿って、意見交換していただく。

（質問の例）
・E's clubの良い点（プラクティス、運営方法、幹事・スタッフの対応など）
・E's clubの改善が必要な点（プラクティス、運営方法、幹事・スタッフの対応など）
・他のスクールやグループの取り組みで、楽しかった進行方法
・やってみたいイベント
・扱ってみたいマテリアルのテーマ
・ウェブサイトの感想、改善が必要な点
etc...

（４）「ご意見記入シート」にご記入いただき、スタッフに返却。

<Latter half>
スコット先生が作成されたマテリアルです。

"Was it Right to Kill Bin Laden?"
Amid the celebrations over the death of al-Qaida's leader, Art Caplan
weighs in on the ethics of assassination

Commentary
By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
msnbc.com
updated 2:30 p.m. ET May 2, 2011

When Osama bin Laden’s death was announced there was no doubt how
Americans felt about his passing. Joy erupted all across the country.
People ran into the streets to celebrate. Cheers broke out at sporting
events. The families of those murdered in the 9/11 attacks stated
their relief.

Politicians took quiet pride in his killing. President Barack Obama
declared, in a curt phrase that may well become the signature
statement of his presidency, “justice has been done.”

Yet, there are ethical questions that some are quietly asking on the
occasion of the killing of the world’s most notorious terrorist: Do we
condone killing without a trial? Is assassination ever an ethical act?

While it is tough to raise these questions about the demise of a
despised figure like bin Laden, I think his killing was ethical. If
any terrorist was ever a candidate to be deliberately wiped out, Osama
bin Laden is surely that person.

At a White House briefing Monday, Homeland Security advisor John
Brennan said "we would have taken bin Laden alive if we could,"
although the team of U.S. Special Forces trained for both
eventualities - taking him alive or engaging in a fight.

The American government has been trying to take out this man for a
nearly decade. They finally did.

Press reports say that the military team that killed Osama Bin Laden
is an elite special forces group unofficially called SEAL Team 6.
Officially, the team's name is classified and not available to the
public. Technically there is no team 6. The members of Team 6 are all
"black" operatives. They exist outside military protocol, engage in
operations that are at the highest level of classification and often
outside the boundaries of international law. To maintain plausible
deniability in case they are caught, records of black operations are
not kept.

So, the President ordered an elite, “off the books” team to kill our
most hated enemy. But, doesn’t that order violate international law?

Article 23b of the Hague Regulations, adopted by the U.S. and other
nations in 1907, prohibits “assassination, proscription, or outlawry
of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as
offering a reward for an enemy 'dead or alive'." In 1976, President
Gerald Ford signed an executive order banning assassination.

The events of 9/11 changed American policy. In October, 2001 President
George W. Bush authorized the CIA to carry out missions to assassinate
Osama bin Laden and his supporters. He publicly declared that bin
Laden was “wanted, dead or alive.” And President Obama has maintained
that policy.

Is the killing of Osama bin Laden an "assassination"? And if it is, is
it morally right? Does it "serve justice" to hunt down our enemies and
slay them rather than capture them and put them on trial? Do American
values permit retribution for horrible crimes without worrying about
due process? I think, in some instances, they do.

What is interesting about the prohibition of assassination in
international law is that when it was enacted, long, long ago, it was
intended to protect heads of state - not leaders of terrorist
movements. Strange as it may seem, it is harder to justify blowing up
Moammar Gadhafi in a tent in Libya using a predator drone than it is
shooting bin Laden in the head.

One way to see that justice is served by killing bin Laden is to see
that he was playing essentially a military role in waging war against
America. According to fatwa he issued in 1998, it is the duty of
Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the United States,
American civilians, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are
apostates, people who have forsaken their faith, and thus legitimate
targets for death as well. Bin Laden was neither a diplomat nor a
politician. Nor was he a civilian. He was essentially a military
figure leading a band of combatants in a self-styled religious war.
Military leaders are fair game.

American values are jeopardized when we engage in torture against our
enemies. Even in combat there is no place for torture. But, there is a
place in just wars for killing, including those who lead organized
combatants against us. Whether those heading organized efforts to wage
war against us are military leaders, religious leaders or civilians,
we are well within our rights to do whatever it takes to stop them.
Killing Osama bin Laden is not unethical murder - it is the price
organized terrorists who declare war against us must expect to pay.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the
University of Pennsylvania.

英文記事：http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42861619/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/t/was-it-right-kill-bin-laden/
殺害の経緯：http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A6%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BB%E3%83%93%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%81%AE%E6%AD%BB
殺害に関する米国人の意識調査：http://www.cnn.co.jp/usa/30002733.html
newsweekコラムニストによる「殺害の理由の見解」：http://www.newsweekjapan.jp/reizei/2011/05/post-291.php

【AGENDA: Usually, America (and most developed countries) will not take
action against a
criminal without first giving them a trial in a court of law.
However,in the case of Osama
Bin Laden,the US government planned a mission that was probably aimed
at killing rather
than capturing him. This decision has created both an ethical and
legal debate concerning
the use of assassination as a form of stopping criminals. Also,
another debatable action was
that the US decided to dispose of Bin Laden's body at sea,rather than
allow for a proper
burial.】

【DEBATE: Were these the right(morally and legally) decisions?】
Q1-Was the USA justified in killing Osama Bin Laden without a trial?
-If you agree with the USA's decision,in what situations should this
killing method(rather than capturing) be used?
-If you don't agree with the USA's decision, do you think that
assassination is everan ethical act?
Q2 -International law strictly prohibits assassinations, but allows for
the removal ofmilitary leaders.Did the USA violate this law?
Should countries be able to violate international laws, without
repercussions,in extreme situations?
Q3 - Pakistan became very angry at the USA because they were never
alerted of the plan to kill Bin Laden. They claimed that the USA violated their
sovereignty and that international law had been broken.
Did Pakistan have a valid reason to become angry?
Should the USA have warned Pakistan of the mission?
Why do you think the USA chose not to tell Pakistan?

【SOME OTHER ISSUES REGARDING BIN LADEN'S DEATH】
Q4- Shortly after killing Bin Laden,the Navy Seal team disposed of his
body into the sea. Sea burials are against Islamic practices.
What are some possible reasons they would have chosen do this? And, Why so
quickly? Should the US have respected Bin Laden's religion and given
him a proper
burial?
Q5 - Photographs were taken of Bin Laden's body. Many American citizens
want to see them. However,the government initially said that they wouldn't
release them, and they still haven't. What are the pros and cons of
releasing them?
Do you think they should be released? Would you look at them?