Assassination! right or wrong?

I dont know enough about it and i am trying not to allow myself to be washed over by the internet reports of "the facts"

TashaN said:

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 *******?!!!!

Click to expand...

Well I'm from the UK and I'm going to have to be very careful about how I word this... I'd maybe understand why somebody would murder David Cameron.

Furthermore, think of it this way. If I lived under a dictator, I'd much rather somebody kill them surgically rather than bring in their military forces. Even if I admired the leader (which is yet to happen) I'd rather they were assassinated than my country invaded.

Shyanekh said:

Well I'm from the UK and I'm going to have to be very careful about how I word this... I'd maybe understand why somebody would murder David Cameron.

Furthermore, think of it this way. If I lived under a dictator, I'd much rather somebody kill them surgically rather than bring in their military forces. Even if I admired the leader (which is yet to happen) I'd rather they were assassinated than my country invaded.

Click to expand...

To be honest, i wished you were an American patriot, lol.

TashaN said:

To be honest, i wished you were an American patriot, lol.

Click to expand...

Lol no, I'm not even an English patriot

Are we actually debating whether it was illegal to put a bullet in the head of a man who is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of human lives, who were killed in coldblooded murder for nothing? Who gives a damn? Plenty of good things are illegal. Same-sex marriage being a prime example in the United States. Another good example is not wearing a burqa in Middle-Eastern states. I would have preferred to capture and torture the son of a ***** before putting a bullet in his skull, but things don't always work out the way you want them to.

Ok i still dont know the details.

But its quite acceptable to take the command structure of your enemy isnt it? For example an attack on Gadaffi would be an attack on the command structure yes? -- or assassination ?

Wha!
Do you mean that the troops had the option of murdering him or capturing him?
Did they have handcuffs, a tazer or syringe available to disable and remove him?
Or did they just have a bullet in the head as thier only option?
C'mon. He has been a dead man walking since it was decided to put 9/11 onto him.

Darkness said:

Are we actually debating whether it was illegal to put a bullet in the head of a man who is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of human lives, who were killed in coldblooded murder for nothing? Who gives a damn? Plenty of good things are illegal. Same-sex marriage being a prime example in the United States. Another good example is not wearing a burqa in Middle-Eastern states. I would have preferred to capture and torture the son of a ***** before putting a bullet in his skull, but things don't always work out the way you want them to.

Click to expand...

Can you please answer my question in post # 21?

I read a quote from a 92 year old lawyer who took part in the Nurenberg trials. He was quoted as saying "Even Goring was entitled to a trial".

I'm with him.

Benjamin Ferencz, an American lawyer who was a US prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials and who lives in New York state, asked whether the killing was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination. He would have preferred for Bin Laden to have been captured and put on trial.
Ferencz, 92, said: "The picture I get is that a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers find an old guy in pyjamas and shoot him in the chest and head, and that borders, without access to more facts, on murder." He added: "Even [the head of the Luftwaffe Hermann] Göring had a right to trial."

Click to expand...

source US confirms it will not release Osama bin Laden death photo | World news | The Guardian

Sunstone said:

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?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that assassinating Hitler would have saved many lives at all. It could conceivably have cost many more lives, actually.

For instance, if Hitler had been assassinated early in the war, Hermann Goring would probably have been the one to step in and take his place. Goring strongly opposed Hitler's plan to engage the Allies on two fronts, which ended up being Hitler's undoing: Operation Barbarossa spread out the German forces, making them weaker on the Western front, and it drew the Soviets into the war against them. If Hitler had been assassinated before 1941, the war could've stretched on for years longer than it did, or maybe even have resulted in a German victory. And after 1941... I'm not sure that a change in Nazi leadership would've really affected the outcome of the war that much.

TashaN said:

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

Click to expand...

It's questionable, IMO. In the eyes of the law, bin Laden is just a criminal. The arrest of criminals in a sovereign state is the responsibility of that sovereign state.

I'm pretty sure that if the Canadian Forces led a mission across the border into the US to arrest (or kill) a mob boss without getting clearance from the American government, a major international incident would ensue.

Of course, this principle of responsibility is based on the presumption that the sovereign state in question is actually in the business of arresting criminals. If the state and the criminal are in cahoots with each other, then I think that changes things.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

For instance, if Hitler had been assassinated early in the war, Hermann Goring would probably have been the one to step in and take his place. Goring strongly opposed Hitler's plan to engage the Allies on two fronts, which ended up being Hitler's undoing: Operation Barbarossa spread out the German forces, making them weaker on the Western front, and it drew the Soviets into the war against them. If Hitler had been assassinated before 1941, the war could've stretched on for years longer than it did, or maybe even have resulted in a German victory. And after 1941... I'm not sure that a change in Nazi leadership would've really affected the outcome of the war that much.

Click to expand...

That's why the (better) assasination plans included not just Hitler, but many other top Nazi leaders.

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.

Click to expand...

And I will agree with you.

ninerbuff said:

And I will agree with you.

Click to expand...

The British government adopted a 'shoot to kill' policy against the IRA. It recruited many many opponents against the British Government.

When governments descend to the gutter the terrorists have won.

stephenw said:

The British government adopted a 'shoot to kill' policy against the IRA. It recruited many many opponents against the British Government.

When governments descend to the gutter the terrorists have won.

Click to expand...

Is it the British government or the IRA that still exists today?

angellous_evangellous said:

Is it the British government or the IRA that still exists today?

Click to expand...

Thatcher is widely loathed in this country and Martin McGuinness is Deputy first minister.
Large swathes of the protestant community feel sold down the river.
All the IRA prisoners are out for years and many hold high office.
I think it's pretty clear who won. It's not the British government.

stephenw said:

Thatcher is widely loathed in this country and Martin McGuinness is Deputy first minister.
Large swathes of the protestant community feel sold down the river.
All the IRA prisoners are out for years and many hold high office.
I think it's pretty clear who won. It's not the British government.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Hatred is does not indicate victory, and the release of prisoners doesn't demonstrate victory, either.

Britian was overwhelmingly powerful during the entire conflict, and was not weakened in any measurable way by a defeat.

angellous_evangellous said:

Interesting.

Hatred is does not indicate victory, and the release of prisoners doesn't demonstrate victory, either.

Britian was overwhelmingly powerful during the entire conflict, and was not weakened in any measurable way by a defeat.

Click to expand...

You're missing my point - The (former) IRA are the ones who are achieving their goals. They are in positions of power and on the up and up. The British government didn't defeat them, on the contrary the provos are the ones achieving their goals not the British government.

stephenw said:

I read a quote from a 92 year old lawyer who took part in the Nurenberg trials. He was quoted as saying "Even Goring was entitled to a trial".

I'm with him.



source US confirms it will not release Osama bin Laden death photo | World news | The Guardian

Click to expand...

sure he was entitled to a trial after the war and he was captured, but if during the war they bombed his house and killed him wouldnt he be a legitimate target?

stephenw said:

Thatcher is widely loathed in this country and Martin McGuinness is Deputy first minister.
Large swathes of the protestant community feel sold down the river.
All the IRA prisoners are out for years and many hold high office.
I think it's pretty clear who won. It's not the British government.

Click to expand...

we didnt win, we couldnt win , we compromised, and so did they. Its called a political solution only its not a solution, we just did the pontius pilot act. and the troubles are in restless sleep for now.

TashaN said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would expect an enemy to try to assassinate my president. Isn't that what enemies do, kill each other? I would be surprised if, given the opportunity, they would not take the shot to kill him/her.

TashaN said:

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 *******?!!!!

Click to expand...

I understand why somebody would, but I do not agree that it would be a righteous assassination. For one, much of the damage to Iraq and Afghanistan are the result of insurgents and the Taliban, not due to direct American assault.