The Assassination Principle

[Inkidu]

Oh I didn't mean it like that I meant if the law didn't work why would he need power of attorney or the right to not incriminate ones' self. I didn't actually mean that he would get arrested. Sorry. My fault.

[Trieste]

*nods*

As far as I can see - and call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, I don't mind - we have the laws that we know about... and which affect us, as US citizens. I think that our government places the rights and liberties of US citizens above those of others, because you protect your own... especially if they vote for you. So you have things like the debate over humane executions, and legal requirement of the Miranda warning.

And then you have other things that are just not shared with the public. It's why you have redacted documents, even when they're secured through theFreedom of Information Act. It's why you have categorizations like "classified"... and why you have the things that are above classified status.

Do I think our government goes all X-Files on us? No. But I do think they go all Good Shepherd on us.

And it occurs to me after I wrote all that that it's pretty well off-topic, butit's on point so I'm not deleting it. :P

[MusicNeverDies]

I'm peeking in on this, maybe a bit late, but oh well. Take it or leave it.

I think that killing is wrong. If it is me doing it, or Adolf Hitler, or Stalin, anyone. It's wrong. I don't know if we have a topic about abortion, but that's probably the worst.

Anyways. I think that the issue in trying to justify assassination is where does the line fall? If one man kills 800 people with slow agonizing deaths, but another man kills 1200 people with quick relatively painless deaths, does that factor in? What about a soldier? Is there a line when the solider will be killed for following orders?

There are so many variables I think that it's almost impossible to really judge when to assassinate someone, or who the blame should fall on.

[James]

Inkedu, I don't know whether or not you're aware of the fact that the assassination policies you're talking about do not apply to wartime. Does this have significance at all? Yes, it does. The modern political definition of "wartime" is extremely vague and extensive. Anything that poses a large enough threat to justify the label is enough to place a country in a state of "war" today. You'll see the same trends in the global debates regarding large scale civilian surveillance. The directives handed to the often autonomous agencies have a tendency to be vague enough for aforementioned agency to make the individual decisions on their own. Remind me again what country in the world has the highest amount of agencies fitting the description I just gave you? Yes, the United States.

Is it overall likely that the United States (and affiliated nations) may have conducted assassinations in the Middle-East?

According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

Yes, it's highly likely. In fact, I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find a stash of news reports from various independent branches that can affirm to that.

Sure, it's only logical that a country has laws against assassination. It's extremely brutal. On the other hand, it's also extremely efficient. I think this is just as natural as having laws against murder. Simply because a government is prohibited from carrying out an action, doesn't mean that the right motivation will stop them. I feel urged to point you to a history book again, but it's getting a bit old. I'm sure that today, these sort of operations/actions are carried out in a far higher degree than ever before, in great thanks to modern technology. The Middle-East isn't an enemy nation. There is motive and there is opportunity to carry out assassinations. I'm sure you'll find that the "democratic" thing to do is kill generic arab fundamentalist rebel leader before he hijacks another plane.

[Inkidu]

Inkedu, I don't know whether or not you're aware of the fact that the assassination policies you're talking about do not apply to wartime. Does this have significance at all? Yes, it does. The modern political definition of "wartime" is extremely vague and extensive. Anything that poses a large enough threat to justify the label is enough to place a country in a state of "war" today. You'll see the same trends in the global debates regarding large scale civilian surveillance. The directives handed to the often autonomous agencies have a tendency to be vague enough for aforementioned agency to make the individual decisions on their own. Remind me again what country in the world has the highest amount of agencies fitting the description I just gave you? Yes, the United States.

Is it overall likely that the United States (and affiliated nations) may have conducted assassinations in the Middle-East?Yes, it's highly likely. In fact, I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find a stash of news reports from various independent branches that can affirm to that.

Sure, it's only logical that a country has laws against assassination. It's extremely brutal. On the other hand, it's also extremely efficient. I think this is just as natural as having laws against murder. Simply because a government is prohibited from carrying out an action, doesn't mean that the right motivation will stop them. I feel urged to point you to a history book again, but it's getting a bit old. I'm sure that today, these sort of operations/actions are carried out in a far higher degree than ever before, in great thanks to modern technology. The Middle-East isn't an enemy nation. There is motive and there is opportunity to carry out assassinations. I'm sure you'll find that the "democratic" thing to do is kill generic arab fundamentalist rebel leader before he hijacks another plane.

There's a difference between assassination in warfare, and assassination because you think someone is wrong.

[MusicNeverDies]

There's a difference between assassination in warfare, and assassination because you think someone is wrong.

So you think that all of Hitlers army should have been spared?

[Inkidu]

So you think that all of Hitlers army should have been spared?

I don't think Hitler should have been spared in the war, but I don't think it would be right to kill him while he was giving speeches in beer hall after getting out of prison just because you could see a fascist state forming a mile a way.

[James]

There's a difference between assassination in warfare, and assassination because you think someone is wrong.

You're missing the point. I tried to emphasise the importance of noting the modern day definition of the "wartime" circumstances. Strip away the semantics, and there is no "wartime" condition. Look at it yourself. Anything posing a threat of considerable magnitude. That's a constant reality, especially for the United States. Let's put it this way; if the United States government had intimate knowledge of Hitler's future as a child, that would have been a sufficient reason to institute "wartime" conditions and assassinate. It's as simple as that.

[HairyHeretic]

So you think that all of Hitlers army should have been spared?

All, no. Some, yes. I don't think the majority of the Wehrmacht were doing anything too terrible. The likes of the SS though, yeah, round them up and sort out who did what. Those who commit the internationally recognise war crimes, they get dealt with.

And taking a slight tangent, assassinating Hitler later in the war would actually likely have been counterproductive. That would have left competant officers to plan the fighting, and might have led to a negotiated peace, rather than how things actually finished.

That being said, I'm not sure the Soviet forces would have agreed to negoiations.

But thats a discussion for another thread.

[Inkidu]

You're missing the point. I tried to emphasise the importance of noting the modern day definition of the "wartime" circumstances. Strip away the semantics, and there is no "wartime" condition. Look at it yourself. Anything posing a threat of considerable magnitude. That's a constant reality, especially for the United States. Let's put it this way; if the United States government had intimate knowledge of Hitler's future as a child, that would have been a sufficient reason to institute "wartime" conditions and assassinate. It's as simple as that.

That's ridiculous you can't institute war time conditions on one person no matter what you think They'd have to declare war on Germany which wouldn't be done because there's no viable threat. No matter how messed up you think American war policy is it isn't that messed up.

[James]

That's ridiculous you can't institute war time conditions on one person no matter what you think They'd have to declare war on Germany which wouldn't be done because there's no viable threat. No matter how messed up you think American war policy is it isn't that messed up.

No, they wouldn't have to declare war on Germany, because Germany isn't the threat. Adolf Hitler is the threat. It's a simple as that. The modern wartime definition, I can't stress this enough, is applicable to every situation involving a likely threat - regardless of enemy size.

[Inkidu]

Well it's obvious you're just mixing two time periods. Obviously pre-WWII Germany doesn't fall under modern wartime conditions. I said if you had the chance meaning you were alive in 193X et cetera. No time machine so on so forth.

[James]

Well it's obvious you're just mixing two time periods.

It would appear that we're both mixing time periods. ;)

President Ronald Wilson Regan passed quite a few laws about it.

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004)

[sleepingferret]

The so called assassination principle I think isn't just a matter of black and white, right or wrong.  It brings with it the matters of both moral principles, the ever present question of what would benefit society as a whole, and in the end when all is said and done were such actions justifiable, and to what end did they serve?  Did they serve the purpose of protecting innocent people or did such actions only further the goals of what we sought to defeat and had declared wrongful and hurtful to our society?

Morality Fact: Most people can agree that it is morally wrong to murder someone, or take another life.
Problem with this Morality Fact:  Today and throughout history, violent criminals, terrorists, tyrants, and warmongers have placed us in situations where taking another life was necessity.  War however it was started, is unfortunate business and results in people killing people because each side believes in something the other does not, and each side believes that they are right.  Today for the most part military operations are conducted primarily only in response to what pretty much anyone, anywhere would consider to be an act of terrorism or another country trying to impose itself on its neighbor(s).

My personal perspective: While I too believe, that under most circumstances it is wrong to take another life; there comes a time when taking another life isn't just about morality but about love, necessity, or the protection of your normally peaceful way of life.  Granted this does leave a lot of room for extremism, but it is also said under the assumption that one is of sound moral character, and not a fanatic to some extremist cause.

So what about the assassination principle?  To kill one and save a thousand... Again it isn't that simple.  Even in the given example, knowing what Adolf Hitler does, who are we to kill a child?  Now granted, here in the 21st century we know a lot about his life and his childhood, which may have influenced his actions as an adult, but does I guess the real question in mind here is do we have the right to judge a person based on such? 

Cold hearted or not, the world is a better place without the Adolf Hitlers, the Bin Ladens, the Sadam Husseins, and if it means killing every terrorist, until the day they finally realize that society will not tolerate terrorism, then so be it.  It is one thing to disagree with someone, it is another to believe in something another does not, but it is an entirely different thing to push past the boundaries and try to enforce your will on others.  It's even worse, when you do it and claim it to be all in the cause of your religious beliefs.  I may not be the most foremost religious person or expert on world religions, but I know of no credible, recognized religions that supports the use of terrorism (suicide bombings, car bombs, or just plain shooting people) in the name of said religion.

So do we kill that one to save a thousand?  It all depends.  In general theory perhaps not.  But in cold hearted reality, perhaps so...if that's what it takes to ensure our continued way of life.

[James]

First of all, we are never locked in situations where the act of taking a life becomes necessary. It is always a choice. Just because there’s risk, prevention or chance attached, does not make it any less of a choice. It’s only a necessity once it justifies a goal. In most cases discussed in this thread, that goal is the preservation of innocent life. To say that we are stripped bare of our ability to control outcome is simply ignorant.

In my opinion, terrorism can only be fought by underlining and deleting the root causes. It is blatantly naïve to think that world-wide terrorism is going to stop once we’ve arrested enough culprits. You can’t hunt down and kill terrorism, because it’s never about one organization or people. In most cases, acts of terrorism have sprung out of the realization that there is no other option for improvement. There is no political luxury and there is no democratic option for a better tomorrow. Just look at the living conditions of the people in the Middle-East.

These countries do not have enough financial and political support to build a healthy society. In amusing comparison, the United States has the political and financial support to build a very healthy society, but it chooses not to. I’m not going to try to question that, because to me that’s so much more difficult to comprehend than why I would strap a bomb to my chest and blow up a few foreigners. So wait, do I glorify terrorism? Do I think there’s sound reason to kill people? These are difficult questions.

The balance of the world is turned completely upside down. In many regions of our planet, conditions have never been this poor. We have several countries in the world that are poor due to the western superpowers. We have thousands of people dying every single day because all the money that matters – is on the other side of the planet. Do we make the world a better place by hunting down culprits? Did we ever stop crime by putting enough thugs in prison? We will never be able to combat terrorism with armaments, it’s an old ignorant and arrogant view on things that are inspired by the fact that you can make a lot of money that way – rather than simply helping people, that is very expensive!

Just like you’ll find very many social studies on the topic of what causes crime, you’ll find an equal amount of studies on the topic of what justifies terrorism. The modern day society fosters criminal acts by nature alone. It’s that simple. What about the modern day world order? Yes, it fosters the will to commit acts of terrorism. I don’t need to remind you what countries have the power to change these things for the better.

I don’t like to bullshit myself; I get too much of that from the media. It’s so much easier to look at the world for what it is. If I could bring respectable living conditions to the people in every poor region of the world, I would kill. Not one single person deserves to be born into poverty and die of starvation at the age of twelve. That’s not to say that I believe we’ll make the world a better place by killing people, I’m just saying it in reference to the principle. Never forget who has the power to change the world, and who doesn’t.

[Inkidu]

The so called assassination principle I think isn't just a matter of black and white, right or wrong.  It brings with it the matters of both moral principles, the ever present question of what would benefit society as a whole, and in the end when all is said and done were such actions justifiable, and to what end did they serve?  Did they serve the purpose of protecting innocent people or did such actions only further the goals of what we sought to defeat and had declared wrongful and hurtful to our society?

Morality Fact: Most people can agree that it is morally wrong to murder someone, or take another life.
Problem with this Morality Fact:  Today and throughout history, violent criminals, terrorists, tyrants, and warmongers have placed us in situations where taking another life was necessity.  War however it was started, is unfortunate business and results in people killing people because each side believes in something the other does not, and each side believes that they are right.  Today for the most part military operations are conducted primarily only in response to what pretty much anyone, anywhere would consider to be an act of terrorism or another country trying to impose itself on its neighbor(s).

My personal perspective: While I too believe, that under most circumstances it is wrong to take another life; there comes a time when taking another life isn't just about morality but about love, necessity, or the protection of your normally peaceful way of life.  Granted this does leave a lot of room for extremism, but it is also said under the assumption that one is of sound moral character, and not a fanatic to some extremist cause.

So what about the assassination principle?  To kill one and save a thousand... Again it isn't that simple.  Even in the given example, knowing what Adolf Hitler does, who are we to kill a child?  Now granted, here in the 21st century we know a lot about his life and his childhood, which may have influenced his actions as an adult, but does I guess the real question in mind here is do we have the right to judge a person based on such? 

Cold hearted or not, the world is a better place without the Adolf Hitlers, the Bin Ladens, the Sadam Husseins, and if it means killing every terrorist, until the day they finally realize that society will not tolerate terrorism, then so be it.  It is one thing to disagree with someone, it is another to believe in something another does not, but it is an entirely different thing to push past the boundaries and try to enforce your will on others.  It's even worse, when you do it and claim it to be all in the cause of your religious beliefs.  I may not be the most foremost religious person or expert on world religions, but I know of no credible, recognized religions that supports the use of terrorism (suicide bombings, car bombs, or just plain shooting people) in the name of said religion.

So do we kill that one to save a thousand?  It all depends.  In general theory perhaps not.  But in cold hearted reality, perhaps so...if that's what it takes to ensure our continued way of life.

"what would benefit society as a whole." I would like to draw your attention to this part. Because when a person assassinates another person for moral or political reasons (Not in warfare.) they are in effect taking what they think is good for society into their own hands.

You can stand up and fight injustice, but when you try to make it where injustice will never happen that is oppression. It becomes easier and easier to say. "I'm doing this to save two people, then ten people, then one hundred, thousand." then it becomes, "I know what's best for the world."

[sleepingferret]

There is no assassination in warfare only casualties of war.  Regardless of the methods used to inflict said casualties.

[James]

There is no assassination in warfare only casualties of war.  Regardless of the methods used to inflict said casualties.

You're using old wisdom and you're applying it to a completely new situation. You're both still acting as if "warfare" and "wartime" is the exactly same thing it was fifty years ago. It isn't! In fact, you can barely see the difference between wartime and peacetime today because the definitions are so vague.

If you are witty, you could say;
"Well, you know you're in war when terrorists drive planes into tall buildings."

And then I could be even wittier and say;
"I'm sorry, but there's no evidence to support that your own government didn't blow up the tall buildings."

And we wouldn't really get anywhere.

[sleepingferret]

50 years ago or now, doesn't matter.  While what can be defined as a state of war or a period of wartime is different now than it was then, there is still no such thing as assassination in war.

Can the assassination of political figureheads be considered an act of war? Yes, but it's a lot more complex than one country killing off another country's leader(s).

[James]

You did an amazing job at ignoring everything I just said.

First of all, the definition of "assassination" is as follows;
- The killing of a political leader or other public figure
- Murder of a public figure by surprise attack
- Killing by treacherous violence
- A murder of someone who is often prominent politically

There is no footnote in the definition of "assassination" that declares the illegitimacy of the phrase during wartime. The word is not conditional, not by any standard at all. You're barking up the wrong tree. Give me a source to this claim that "assassinations" can't be carried out during wartime.

50 years ago or now, doesn't matter.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? The constitutional ban on assassination applies to the old definition of the "wartime" state. Not the current definition. In other words, assassination during this "wartime" is actually just plain assassination, because the current "wartime" definition describes a condition that the United States will never be able to run away from (due to stature alone) - I smell a LOGICAL CONTRADICTION.

[Inkidu]

Hey I could care less about wartime. All is fair in love and so on so forth.
What I'm saying is that when one person takes in it his or her hands to decide what is best for everyone else, that's playing God.

[James]

What I'm saying is that when one person takes in it his or her hands to decide what is best for everyone else, that's playing God.

What I'm saying is that our governments do this all of the time!  ;D

[Inkidu]

So? I didn't say they didn't. I would believe the U.S. hasn't done it for a while but in order to find out. I doubt anyone here has access to that thing. Anyway I didn't say they don't. I say it's wrong. It undermines free will at the core.

[James]

So? I didn't say they didn't. I would believe the U.S. hasn't done it for a while but in order to find out. I doubt anyone here has access to that thing. Anyway I didn't say they don't. I say it's wrong. It undermines free will at the core.

Most political systems in the world today undermine free will.  ;)

[Inkidu]

Democracy isn't supposed to.