Should assasination be a legitimate weapon for states to use?

[shamrock_uk]

I'm inclined to say 'yes'.

Regime change clearly doesn't work and is immensly costly, both in monetary and human terms. My understanding is that (aside from the CIA bending the rules a bit a couple of times) it is illegal for America to do political assasination and I think the same applies to the UK. The only advanced country I know of that openly admits it does is Israel - but why only them?

Look at Iraq - you want rid of Saddam? Drop cruise missiles on all his presidential palaces in the middle of the night. Simple, cheap, effective. If his successor doesn't toe the line, get rid of him too. They'll soon get the hint...

I'm not saying its morally acceptable or condoning it, but clearly regime change is 'on the agenda' so why not do it this way and avoid the toll in human suffering?

The only caveat would be the increased risk of your own heads of state being assasinated, but security is already crazy - I certainly doubt Bush could be killed this way.

Your thoughts?

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

Even if you remove the head of the snake, the rest of the snake still exists, and no doubt, a new head will regrow. You have to get rid of the entire system; not just one man.

[Azred]

Not necessarily; sometimes the system is supported by the man. I doubt Russia would have been the way it was for much of the 20th century had Stalin not been around.

I have long supported assassination as an extremely cost-effective method of policy/regime change in other nations. If you're not willing to risk your life to lead your country in the way in which you beleive to be the "best" or "right" way, then 1) you don't have very strong beliefs and 2) you shouldn't be in charge.

Israel admits to such things because Israel isn't afraid of anyone. They can guilt others into tolerating their behavior....

[johnny]

Eliminating the leader doesn't have the effect the assassins would like it to have. Does anyone believe the US would crumble if an Arab assassin managed to kill the president ? I think the US would only become more determined to deal with their enemy.

Take out the Ayatollah of Iran, and there's two dozen new ones waiting to replace him, and because of the situation that moved them into that position, it would probably the hardest of the hardliners who gets the job.

[Chewbacca]

It's far more effective to occupy and destroy their civilization. Humilate them. Make oil-rich nations wait in line for hours for scarce gas. Raze thier cities block-by-block. Instill puppet governments, mock media, and hold elections-for-show that might backfire but make for good headlines at home. All to make them submit and those that dont submit, make them come out to fight for the easy kill that superior firepower and technology affords. Assassination is but one tool in the arsenal of dominance.

[ 02-19-2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Alas, the only assassination attempts the free press report about are just that, attempts. You will never know (add Paul Harvey's voice), The Rest of the Story!

[Kakero]

No need to waste time on such attempt. Just nuke them all. There, end of story.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I don't know why we need assasination to be legitimate when governments can just give $10,000,000 to five or six guys (all named Vito) to take care of pesky foreign leader-types. No muss, no fuss, no connections. Sheesh.

[Jaradu]

Assassination within your own country is fine by me, but messing with other people's governements isn't fair.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I'm inclined to say 'yes'.

Assassination will always be a tool for states to use regardless of whether it's legitimate or not. I don't think you should legalize it in the sense of allowing in your law books, though. It would look bizarre and break the legal tradition of Western countries. It better remain a [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img] -issue.

Regime change clearly doesn't work and is immensly costly, both in monetary and human terms. My understanding is that (aside from the CIA bending the rules a bit a couple of times) it is illegal for America to do political assasination and I think the same applies to the UK. The only advanced country I know of that openly admits it does is Israel - but why only them?

Well, Israel is subject to more pressure from militant groups than any other Western country. Perhaps they see this as the only way.

Look at Iraq - you want rid of Saddam? Drop cruise missiles on all his presidential palaces in the middle of the night. Simple, cheap, effective. If his successor doesn't toe the line, get rid of him too. They'll soon get the hint...

I doubt you can scare people into submission like this. Most likely they will find a way to get back at you. At most, assassination can only be a part of a greater strategy, not a just convenient way to get rid of people you don't like. If you assassinate someone in a part of the world, you're entering a political game in that said of the world, and you can't just leave like nothing ever happened. People there will remember what you've done for years to follow.

I'm not saying its morally acceptable or condoning it, but clearly regime change is 'on the agenda' so why not do it this way and avoid the toll in human suffering?

What human suffering? The suffering of your own military personnel? Of your own civilian population? The military and civilians of whatever country whose leader you just killed? Will the assassination of a person alleviate human suffering?

The only caveat would be the increased risk of your own heads of state being assasinated, but security is already crazy - I certainly doubt Bush could be killed this way.

Well, that's always a risk.

Your thoughts?

See above.