Is The International Tribunal Really A Deterrent?

The latest assassinations are weakening the argument that the International Tribunal will deter the killers.

After each assassination of a March 14 leader, angry voices start clamoring for revenge with a “let’s kill one of them” logic. Of course, any sane person is appalled by extra-judicial killing, but in the ways of deterrence, it works. Here’s a mischievous question for you: Will there still be killings of March 14 MPs if the known cost was the life of a March 8 MP?

The civilized response to injustice is justice. Our level-headed leaders keep calming the population down by reminding them that the International Tribunal’s job is to reveal the killers’ infrastructure and achieve justice. They portray the International Tribunal as a panacea that will stop the killers. The mother of all deterrences. 

But why isn’t the damn thing working?

High, abstract ideals like Democracy, sovereignty and independence are fine, but when the cost of achieving them is your head (quite literally in Mr. Ghanem’s case), your average MP will find it tempting to sell his soul out. Does it really matter to discuss the rules of the game when your opponent is not playing?

As the latest assassinations are showing, we are still in a situation where the killers find more rewards than punishment in killing. Whether we like it or not, the killing is working. March 14 are irreversibly losing their majority: A re-election for Mr. Ghanem’s replacement would most likely produce an opposition MP.

In a moment of intellectual weakness, I’m starting to find virtues in mob justice.