Assassination! right or wrong?

TashaN · May 3, 2011

It would be impossible for a state or its leaders to ignore the internationally recognized rule prohibiting assassination. Such government officials would be subject to prosecution in any state of the world that obtained jurisdiction over them for the commission of an international crime without limitation of time. I doubt seriously that the American people would want any aspect of our foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by alleged international criminals.

A professor of law at the University of Illinois.
What's Still Wrong With Political Assassination; Law of the Land - New York Times

How relevant the above is to the subject of killing Bin Laden?

Engyo · May 3, 2011

First, I don't support assassinations in any form.

That said, was Bin Laden a political figure in the sense that he represented no government?

Panda · May 3, 2011

Has assassination not always been a tool of statecraft? Not saying I agree with it, I would like to say I'm against it but there may be some situations where it could be justified.

McBell · May 3, 2011

TashaN said:
It would be impossible for a state or its leaders to ignore the internationally recognized rule prohibiting assassination. Such government officials would be subject to prosecution in any state of the world that obtained jurisdiction over them for the commission of an international crime without limitation of time. I doubt seriously that the American people would want any aspect of our foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by alleged international criminals.

A professor of law at the University of Illinois.
What's Still Wrong With Political Assassination; Law of the Land - New York Times

How relevant the above is to the subject of killing Bin Laden?

Completely irrelevant.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
assassination
n 1: an attack intended to ruin someone's reputation [syn: character
assassination, blackwash]
2: murder of a public figure by surprise attack

"Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)"
ASSASSINATION, crim. law. A murder committed by an assassin. By
assassination is understood a murder committed for hire in money, without
any provocation or cause of resentment given by the person against whom the
crime is directed. Ersk. Inst. B. 4, t. 4, n. 45.

Mathematician · May 4, 2011

Not really sure how a firefight would count as an assassination.

Bismillah · May 4, 2011

Not really sure how a firefight would count as an assassination.

Sorry? The event of resistance does not negate an event as part of an assassination or an attempt at assassination.

Sunstone · May 4, 2011

I think assassination in the context of a legal war, or even in the context of an armed conflict (in which both sides are using violence to achieve their ends), is morally problematic. Then again, I think most things are morally problematic.

In the context of a war or armed conflict, assassination is sometimes argued to be morally justified as a trade off of some sort. The notorious hypothetical that's is often used to illustrated that point is this one: Suppose you were able to bring about an early end to World War II by assassinating Hitler. Suppose further that such an outcome would effectively save hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives. How many lives would you need to save by assassinating Hitler before assassinating him is morally justified?

I'm not expert enough in morality to argue whether or not assassination is ever a moral option, but it does seem at times that it could be the wisest option.

TashaN · May 4, 2011

Let alone morality because we might disagree on it, but legally speaking, did the US had the right to assassinate him?

Sunstone · May 4, 2011

TashaN said:
Let alone morality because we might disagree on it, but legally speaking, did the US had the right to assassinate him?

You make me wish I were a professor of law.

TashaN · May 4, 2011

Some interesting articles:

White House spokesman Jay Carney provided new details today on how the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden, explaining that the al-Qaeda leader was unarmed when U.S. forces found him upstairs in his compound and that he "resisted"--resisted how exactly, we don't know--before U.S. forces fatally shot him in the head and spirited away his body. The account differs from counterterrorism chief John Brennan's statement yesterday that bin Laden had a weapon, and fuels a spirited--if perhaps academic at this point--debate: Was it legal for the U.S. to kill bin Laden, both under U.S. law and international law? According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the answer is yes. Here's why people are agreeing or disagreeing with him:

Did the U.S. Kill Bin Laden Legally? - Yahoo! News

Another one ...

The American government has been trying to take out this man for a nearly decade. They finally did.

Press reports say that the military team that killed Osama Bin Laden is an elite special forces group unofficially called SEAL Team 6 . Officially, the team's name is classified and not available to the public. Technically there is no team 6. The members of Team 6 are all "black" operatives. They exist outside military protocol, engage in operations that are at the highest level of classification and often outside the boundaries of international law. To maintain plausible deniability in case they are caught, records of black operations are not kept.

So, the President ordered an elite, “off the books” team to kill our most hated enemy. But, doesn’t that order violate international law?

Article 23b of the Hague Regulations, adopted by the U.S. and other nations in 1907, prohibits “assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy 'dead or alive'." In 1976, President Gerald Ford signed an executive order banning assassination.

Ethics of assassination: Was it right to kill bin Laden? - World news - Death of bin Laden - msnbc.com

But at the end, the writer above has stated after laying out some argument to support his conclusion:

Killing Osama bin Laden is not unethical murder — it is the price organized terrorists who declare war against us must expect to pay.

And another writer said:

Wouldn’t the world have been a happier place if, in retaliation for Yvonne Fletcher, Lockerbie and the arming of the IRA, Britain had openly pursued the goal of eliminating Colonel Gaddafi? Think of the effect it would have had on other despots. Think of the pause it would have given to those who would intimidate, injure or insult British passport holders. We are now in an expensive, convoluted and unpopular half-war which is as likely as not to end with the mad colonel dying at gunpoint. I certainly hope it does. But instead of declaring that goal honestly, we shall end up achieving it shiftily, and in the pretence that we are protecting civilians at the behest of the United Nations; and, of course, having killed several innocent people along the way (for Gaddafi’s grandchildren surely fall into this category).

America was right to kill Osama bin Laden; we should have killed Gaddafi – Telegraph Blogs

So, what do you think?

TashaN · May 4, 2011

Sunstone said:
You make me wish I were a professor of law.

lol. Law is boring!!! but interesting only when watching American series about laws and lawyers on court rooms.

zenzero · May 4, 2011

Friend Tashan,

Assassination! right or wrong?

There is nothing as right or wrong.
It is the doer who justifies is acts which comes from his mind and is an illusion.

Love & rgds

Bismillah · May 4, 2011

Interesting links Tashan...

I think that there is definitely something that the U.S gov was hiding, I would say torture so as to extract information out of OBL to kill him.

Justification of burial at sea as an Islamic practice however has no merit and is a smokescreen in my views as well as an attempt to show supposed respect for a person despite his actions (i.e look he was a terrorist and we still burried him according to his beliefs).

dmgdnooc · May 4, 2011

Well, I think that if the US had ever wanted OBL to be tried in a Court of Law for his alleged crimes, then they would have accepted the Taliban offer to deliver him up for trial that was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan.
　
The US preferred invading Afghanistan over seeing OBL stand trial.
So he was always slated for summary execution, imo.
And the only trial he was ever to receive has been meted out in the press.
　
That's what the US wanted, that's what the US got.
　
All this, of course, begs the question - why didn't the US ever want him tried by a Court of Law?
And I can only suppose that the evidential base of the charges is extremely weak, most especially in relation to the events of 9/11.

Sahar · May 4, 2011

Good links, TashaN.

TashaN · May 4, 2011

dmgdnooc said:
Well, I think that if the US had ever wanted OBL to be tried in a Court of Law for his alleged crimes, then they would have accepted the Taliban offer to deliver him up for trial that was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan.
　
The US preferred invading Afghanistan over seeing OBL stand trial.
So he was always slated for summary execution, imo.
And the only trial he was ever to receive has been meted out in the press.
　
That's what the US wanted, that's what the US got.
　
All this, of course, begs the question - why didn't the US ever want him tried by a Court of Law?
And I can only suppose that the evidential base of the charges is extremely weak, most especially in relation to the events of 9/11.

Maybe frightened at the thought of him having a fair trial and getting away with it?

Kilgore Trout · May 4, 2011

Killing a murderous psychopath is doing everyone a favor. To be subject to assination, one has to have the balls to subject themselves, and play by the rules of international diplomacy via political leadership.

dmgdnooc · May 4, 2011

That's the risk of a 'fair' trial.
But maybe uncomfortable with a public, and international, examination of the events of 9/11 that was conducted without the veto of the Whitehouse, CIA and Pentagon.

Erebus · May 4, 2011

Maybe I'm not going to make myself popular with this one but here goes. I fully approve of assassination and not just for dictators. There are a lot of untouchables in society, whether they're political figures or crime lords. The sheer amount of red tape surrounding the proper methods of dealing with these people is ludicrous and while the bureaucrats **** about innocent people end up getting hurt. Whether we like it or not, some people have to be killed to protect others. I would argue that assassination certainly has its place in both war and law enforcement.

TashaN · May 4, 2011

Shyanekh said:
Maybe I'm not going to make myself popular with this one but here goes. I fully approve of assassination and not just for dictators. There are a lot of untouchables in society, whether they're political figures or crime lords. The sheer amount of red tape surrounding the proper methods of dealing with these people is ludicrous and while the bureaucrats **** about innocent people end up getting hurt. Whether we like it or not, some people have to be killed to protect others. I would argue that assassination certainly has its place in both war and law enforcement.

Would you fathom assassinating your President by an enemy, because your enemies believe that Whether we like it or not, some people have to be killed to protect others.

I don't know where you are from, but if for example you were an American and an Iraqi or Afghani has killed your President, will you think that from the perspective of the killer, he might be right because the US has done so much damage in Iraq/afganistan after invading it? or you will think, what a coward murderer *******?!!!!

Assassination! right or wrong?

Veteran Member

Prince of Dorkness!

42?

Resident Sourpuss

Reason, and reason again

Submit

De Diablo Del Fora

Veteran Member

De Diablo Del Fora

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Its only a Label

Submit

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Misanthropic Humanist

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member