The "ethics" and "morality" of assassination

[BloodyWilliam]

Okay, I'm not going to try to say that assassination is ever right. No form of murder can truly be completely justified. But compared to the other options, is it wrong for me to approve of assassination as a part of intelligence?

Chew on this: Country A is aggressive. Country A doesn't like us and we don't like Country A. Either Country A or us is eventually going to attack the other. In such a case, is it wrong to send a no-name no-label no-identity sniper to put a 30-06 bullet in the head of the president of Country A, if it will prevent the killing of thousands in war?

Even if the target nation isn't exactly 'evil,' is it a hard bet to think that the leaders have more than likely done something to deserve it than the people? It's not a nice job leading a nation, and more often than not I'd bet you do have to sell your soul in decisions and condemn people to die. Isn't the loss of life of a leader better than the loss of life of a people?

Who would you rather see die? 1 Saddam Hussein or 15,000 Iraqis?

This isn't a very pleasant question, but consider it. It's on extremely dubious ethical ground, but isn't it a better alternative than war?

And on a slightly different note, I certainly do favor the firing of obscenely-paid executives instead of thousands of workers. :evilgrin:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Kill the leaders first, I agree

Wars should be fought top down. I think it's the height of classist bigotry to say assasssinating a leader is wrong, but mass killings of regular soldiers is justified.

[AP]

16. What if you're fighting a war in which the soldiers would continue to figh

even if the leader died?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

25. WWI was started by an assassination. n/t

[Loonman]

2. Ask Israel

Targeted assassination of opposition leaders is a cottage industry in that half-assed shitty country.

They pay for it all with our paychecks.

[BloodyWilliam]

3. Israel's no saint, and that's not the best form of assassination.

Still, I think we need to remember that Sharon and the hard-liners is wrong, not all of Israel.

By assassination, I mean sending a guy to put a bullet between Arafat's eyes, rather than dropping a nuke on his apartment building. Assassination implies subtlety.

[HEyHEY]

4. Pick off the leaders

When someone is going to be the cause of thousands of deaths...I have no qualms about killing them. I'd say it's justified.

[BloodyWilliam]

6. Ex-fucking-zactly.

Note to the feds who are probably watching:

This is strictly intelligence policy. I in no way advocate assassination of the leaders of this nation by any members of this board, any citizens, or myself. That would be wrong. It would be bad. It would be illegal. Please don't arrest me.

[htuttle]

5. The ends NEVER justify the means

There are mechanisms in place to provide for international justice. Whether they are used or abused, they are in place, none the less (much like the US justice system...).

The choice was NOT between killing tens of thousands of civilians or assassinating Hussein. There was a third choice: OBEY THE LAW, and work within the framework of international justice. Just like our own justice system, it can be frustrating, and sometimes end with no result, but is a darn sight better than vigilante 'justice'.

Who's to say that an assassination would not lead to a series of terrible events? In case you've forgotten, WWI was started by the assassination of a single leader..

So-called 'ends' are illusionary, and exist only in the mind. It's the 'means' that actually exist in reality, and carry ramifications long after the 'ends' are achieved (or in Bush's case, 'declared').

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. Shoudl have killed Hussein in the first Gulf War

Instead of killing Hussein, or even just deposing him, Bush I decided to massacre average Iraqi soldiers, and then leave Hussein in place. I say it would have been much better to assassinate Hussein instead.

[Guaranteed]

22. Right...the problem is the "ends justifying the means"

is exactly what STARTS WARS. It's wrong. If people would drop that stupid philosophy, there would be no war.

[xJlM]

7. No ethics or morality to it

Since this is all hypothetical anyway, what happens when the supporters of your enemy leader realise what has been done? How many generations of terrorists will this spawn?

Nonsense like this is what has given Amerika such a good name in all corners of the world. And I'm not idealistic enough to believe this doesn't go on already, I just don't think it's very common knowledge.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. Which do you choose, premeditated murder or wholesale slaughter?

To call the choice ethically dubious is one helluva understatement.

I don't think I'm being a pollyanna when I say, firmly, "none of the above."

[sweetheart]

10. Who would you rather see die?

1 criminal in the white house or 15,000 iraqis... well, hmmm.. i'm not allowed to say... but you can guess what i'm thinking.

If a wmd wiped out the entire american cabinet, like some former officers in hitler's nazi bunker tried to do a few decades back, i would not mourn their deaths at all, rather celibrate a great relief as the world relaxes without murderous felons in power actively murdering 1000's of people.

On principal i do not agree that the state has the right to take any life ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever. But the second amendment says you can knock off the politician you don't like with your right to defend the constitution... that right has been abridged... its time we were allowed to see our elected representatives in person while our guns are in their holsters.

expect this post to be censored and deleted, as you are only alllowed to suggest murdering other presidents on this board, not the truly evil mother fucker one.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Why the quotation marks

Around "ethics" & "morality"? The words have definitely been overused & misused but even we evil liberals don't think they're meaningless.

Your options are pre-emptive war versus assassination. I would chose neither.

From a non-moralistic standpoint, the assassination probably wouldn't work, either. Do you think that the supporters of the victim would suddenly become gentle pacifists? More likely, there would be a bloody power struggle with a new bastard landing on the top of the heap.

[7th_Sephiroth]

21. but the one that takes over

would know not to start anything, lest they get killed too

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. There is definitely a transition away from the rule of law

To the older, more streamlined system of whoever has the bigger club simply killing those they wish to kill.

It is a system that is definitely in the best interests of those who have big clubs.

[BloodyWilliam]

13. Consider the country you're in.

Is that truly no longer the case? We stomp everywhere talking about how we have the biggest club. Only difference is we have to talk about how the guys with twigs might put poison on their twigs before we squash 'em.

...I am KING of the crappy metaphor.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. LOL and then we quickly run to sell poison twigs to

the people we just said were going to get them :)

[AP]

15. Furthermore, consider regicide.

Is there really any other option? When you have people who think their bloodline gives them the right to rule, how in the world do you deal with that?

[nemo137]

17. i would.

and i would support the assassination of terrorist leaders over invading and occupying whole countries, too, as a general thing.

[Clete]

18. Assassination is never right to me.

For one thing you assassinate the person who stands for the system, not the system. It probably worked back in ancient times when assassinations were really only power struggles between the family of the King. But in our present day, I really rued the assassination of Uday and Kusay because they didn't get a trial.

I hate the fact that they are trying to kill Osama and Saddam for the same reason. I want a trial, not because I don't think they aren't guilty, but their people, the world and history needs the closure not to mention the truth. Also, what are the Bushies afraid of that could have been revealed by a trial? When the time comes, and it will come, I want them to have a trial too because we need the truth.

Remember that when the allies were closing in on Hilter he and those closest to him chose to commit suicide because they didn't want the scrutiny that a trial would bring.

[rasputin1952]

19. I have to agree with you here Clete...

As we are a nation of laws, it is imperative that we follow, or ammend those laws.

A trial shows the rest of the world we are serious about the law. For those of us that lived through the Kennedy Assassination, we understood tha Oswald would have been tried, if Ruby had not shot him. (Please, let's avoid the :tinfoilhat: stuff, for this situation).
My point being, that even though Oswald was accused, and many believed, or wanted to believe, he shot Kennedy, he was still going to get a trial. Many other countries would have just taken him out and shot him against the wall.

Once Oswald was dead, everything that a trial wopuld have brought out, was no longer accessible. Just as when Hitler shot himself, the a major poart of the puzzle was missing, and we have been going over this scenario since 1945. A trial bringsa out items that are far to often overlooked.

Assassination, is not a good idea, for one thing, it is murder. For another, answers cannot be found as to WHY the events played out as they did. Finally, assassination breeds more assassinations. Once we move from the higher moral ground, we cannot regain it. That is a line I prefer we nwver cross.

:kick:

[Silverhair]

23. Maybe

In the modern history of the world, there has not been a single instance of two democracies going to war against each other. In every war, at least one of the sides is a genuine dictator. (I know lots of us like to call GWB a dictator, but I have not talking about hyperbole, I am talking about the genuine for real type.) It could give an incentive to certain dictators to walk softly. On the other hand - remember the silliness of the attempts to assinate Casto?

Unfortuantely, the war on terror will be a shadow war, and will have to involve assinations of individuals.

[Dover]

24. Assassination is cowardly. I thought Saddam's offer of a duel

with the Shrubber was just great.

Or lock all the key people in a room and don't open the door until either they've formed an agreement or killed one another.

Simple, effective and fast way to learn diplomacy. High noon at the I'm Okay, You're Okay Corral. :grouphug: