Should assasination be a legitimate weapon for states to use?

[Aerich]

Hey Stratos, you saved me from going through point by point - I approach this question in the same way you do.

In addition to the cautions already raised, I would add that assassination should not be "legitimate" in the sense that it is used frequently. I'm willing to say that it might be the best option in a small handful of situations (like Hitler, perhaps), but it should NOT be a "solution" that is put on a range of common policy actions.

First, it probably causes more problems that it solves, at least if applied to heads of state. It is the ultimate disrespect to a country to assassinate their leader. It forces people to polarize their opinion, and it will overwhelmingly result in a backlash against the country or organization that planned and carried out the murder. Look at the public and international reaction to the assassination of the former PM of Lebanon. Syria is in some HOT water right now. And as Johnny said, assassinating a leader often does not "cut the head off the snake" but merely makes room for another similar leader (or worse) to arise; in that sense, it's more like the Lernean Hydra than a snake.

Second, I would be concerned about the chain reaction retribution aspect of the problem if most countries openly used assassination as a political tool in international relations. NO person is invulnerable; even if the head of state can be protected, all of his or her advisors cannot be, all the time. This would have three effects: some of the best advisors and politicians would be killed, to the detriment of their countries; some people who could do exemplary jobs would not put their names forward because of fear; and the militant strongman type all over the world would have an easy ride into the most powerful offices in their country. Negotiation and cooperation on an international scale will become less common than it already is.

As you can see, I'm about 95% against assassination. To my mind, it's like sentencing someone to the death penalty without a trial, maybe for their political views and actions, not a crime. It's cold-blooded, first-degree murder. It is the absolute last resort and should not even be considered as an option in the vast, vast majority of situations.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Stratos: [QB]Well, Israel is subject to more pressure from militant groups than any other Western country. Perhaps they see this as the only way.

I'm inclined to think they're just pragmatic [img]smile.gif[/img]

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.

Like Iraq is now you mean? Clearly the 'present method' of regime change falls into all the same pitfalls.

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?

Not alleviate, but avoid potential suffering. I'm just looking at it as an alternative to the mess in Iraq - both allied troops and Iraqi civilians need not have died if an alternative approach could have been found.

[Stratos]

If we had assassinated Saddam, one of his sons would just have taken over. And after him some other creep. There probably wouldn't be much change for the Iraqis civilians.

Assassination might be useful in a war effort, but if your intention is to help civilians, it takes more work than to just kill whomever it is that torments them for the moment.

[Jerr Conner]

Assassination = Martyrism.

[Morgeruat]

Not necessarily, it depends on the method used. Yeah if you drop a couple hundred cruise missiles and wipe out the established government, they will become martyrs, however, if it were made to look like, say an aneurism, or heart attack (something several of our intelligence agencies specialize in), then there would be no ability to say this was obviously an assassination attempt by so and so's government.

[John D Harris]

In a Time of open warfare I would say yes, short of open warfare NO. If we get into political assasinations, then everybody will be doing it. What will the rules be? Afterall we have to have rules, if we didn't have rules on what basis would the complants against the coalition be?
Why is Israel the only ones that come out and say it? Well Israel has the largest pair of Fuzzy one's on the planet.

[ 02-21-2005, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Dace De'Briago]

Well, if one country permits assassination as a legal means of achieving foreign policy they shouldnt be suprised when some other state kills their leader or declares war.

As long as they can live with the consequences of that, then I don't have a problem with it.