Question 2: Is assassination ever justifiable?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Beryl, Feb 4, 2007.

Page 1 of 2
  1. Beryl

    Beryl WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285
    An important note to read.
    This is the second of a series of questions I'm doing out of a book I have from the late 1800s. Discuss as you see fit. I'm placing all threads in the series in the Free Thoughts forum because I thought they should all be in the same forum and they're on a variety of subjects.

    The question...
    Is assassination ever justifiable?
     
    Beryl, Feb 4, 2007
    #1

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Roman

    Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Of course.
     
    Roman, Feb 4, 2007
    #2

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. francois

    francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    Yep...
     
    francois, Feb 4, 2007
    #3

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Athelwulf

    Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Whether it's justifiable, I'll leave alone.

    But I will say that it should be avoided at all costs.
     
    Athelwulf, Feb 4, 2007
    #4
  8. Oniw17

    Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    As long as I'm not the target.
     
    Oniw17, Feb 4, 2007
    #5
  9. Athelwulf

    Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Are you Bush?
     
    Athelwulf, Feb 4, 2007
    #6
  10. Oniw17

    Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Sometimes.
     
    Oniw17, Feb 4, 2007
    #7
  11. Beryl

    Beryl WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285
    What if sometime in the far future you become an evil dictator? Can you really say (now, while you are - I assume - still a pretty decent person) that it still wouldn't be justifiable for someone to assassinate you, just because of your youness?
     
    Beryl, Feb 4, 2007
    #8
  12. Athelwulf

    Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Then you should sometimes worry.
     
    Athelwulf, Feb 4, 2007
    #9
  13. Oniw17

    Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Then I would be remembered for generations.
    Yes I can. In fact, if I were to become an evil dictator, I would make it a crime, punishable by death, to assassinate, or attempt to assissinate me. The reason is because my ego is too strong, I couldn't handle the psychological complications of death.
     
    Oniw17, Feb 4, 2007
    #10
  14. Beryl

    Beryl WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285
    I think a lot of dictators end up making a law like that.
     
    Beryl, Feb 4, 2007
    #11
  15. Athelwulf

    Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Not to mention it's already illegal. So it's redundant.
     
    Athelwulf, Feb 4, 2007
    #12
  16. Beryl

    Beryl WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285
    There's that, too. It would be pretty impractical to have it legal, I should think.
     
    Beryl, Feb 4, 2007
    #13
  17. Raithere

    Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Not only is it justifiable, it should be encouraged.

    What could be better than watching the political scum of the world offing each other?

    ~Raithere
     
    Raithere, Feb 4, 2007
    #14
  18. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Arguably, the most fundamental and important rule of civilization is:

    It is never okay to initiate the use of deadly force against another person.

    This rule became necessary when we moved out of our villages where we were all acquainted with or related to each other, into cities where we had to live harmoniously and cooperatively with strangers. It is a necessary override to our pack-social instinct to regard everyone outside our extended family group with suspicion and hatred. Without it we would all have to spend too much time and effort protecting ourselves from each other and the city would fail.

    If you're going to make an exception to this rule and call it "assassination," where do you draw the line? Sure, we all agreed that Hitler should have been assassinated... except that the Germans didn't agree with us so none of them did it and they guarded him against us. A whole lot of people outside America think Bush should be assassinated. Belgium once had a warrant out for him for his long list of war crimes--bless their hearts--but they were going to arrest him, not send assassins after him.

    Who is fair game? Assassination is the killing of someone in authority because you don't like the way he wields that authority, or because you don't like the way he acquired the authority. Can you assassinate your boss? Screw politics, I'm sure if you took a poll, most Americans would target their bosses for assassination. How about a mean and nasty teacher? The zoning commissioner who let your neighbor build a second story on his house? The cop who stopped you for Driving While Black, an unofficial crime in many regions around here? The reviewer who told the whole city that your band sucks? The clerk at the home improvement center who sold you the wrong widget and blew your weekend project?

    Every rule has exceptions but often the best thing to do is not codify them. If a dictator becomes nasty enough, some of his subjects will lose their willingness to endure him and plot to assassinate him even if it's illegal. We don't have to make it legal. It's better if we don't, because it will discourage us all from going too far and making too many "exceptions" to the rule. We need to see the assassins on trial, to understand why they did it, to see if a jury wants to make an individual exception and grant them clemency due to circumstances.

    The jury represents all of us. If the jury decides to let the assassins get away with it, then it is a decision that has been made by the people, not the assassins. We all have to live with it. We probably won't let that happen very often--like less than once per generation--and that's a good idea.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Feb 4, 2007
    #15
  19. vcostor

    vcostor Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    The sentence was if it could be justified, meaning right by the law. I don't think it could because of the fact an assassination by definition is outside the law. So we have to ask whether or not it is right or not. Assassination is used as an agent of fear and of desperation. If bush were to be assassinated the american people would fear their lack of securtiy. I am not saying they will run into the streets screaming but they will be mindful of the fact that their leader, and best protected person in the world, is vulnerable. Their system of governemtn would not break down as seen in the movies but their moral will drop. Hopefully in the eyes of the killer things would change or they would stay the same.

    Desperation meaning the person being killed has done something to bad to an individual that they can no longer think of a better way to fix their situation. And when I say killer I mean the person behing the killing, maybe their hired a hitman.

    Now we have all heard of governments assassinating leaders of other governments. I prefer this method to invasion. I would have preferred the US assassinating saddam then invading due to the cost of innocents that this 'war' has inssued. I am not saying that would be right though.

    The problem with assassinations is the lack of information on why. When terrorist groups take the blame for an action they are making a point. We did this to stop you from doing this. When JFK was killed and oswald was charged there was no statement as this. Atleast to my knowledge. So If he had done it why. Was there somthing in JFK's plans for the future that affected him in a bad way, or something from the past? It is not a very good way for an individual to get their point accross. When the CIA 'changes the governing body' of a country they have an agenda that affects them in a good way(the hope anyway). When the IRA used to bomb people it was for a reason that they made clear. Do this again we kill again and so on. It is the most basic of threats and it has a good chance to work.

    Assassinating a leader to stop him from killing his own people either taking them to war or just killing is one of the only outlets general people have. We just deny the use of it because we think we are above it.
     
    vcostor, Feb 4, 2007
    #16
  20. Baron Max

    Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    "Justifiable" by whom? And when? I.e., "justifiable" does not mean that it must be "approved" by everyone on the planet! For example, it's "justified" by the assassin, even if by no one else.

    That's not what "justify" means. It might well be what Beryl means, but the word is not defined in that way.

    But even if you wish to stick to your definition for arguments' sake, then don't you have to tell us WHICH law? Because every nation has different laws and rules, and they don't always agree. So even if you use the legal ideal, then you have to be much more specific.

    Baron Max
     
    Baron Max, Feb 4, 2007
    #17
  21. Baron Max

    Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Interesting, Fraggle ...but human history (and even pre-history!) was filled with human civilisations that did not hold to that rule. Many, many civilizations went on long conquests of other civilizations over the planet, conquering others through the force of arms.

    So the question I have for you is .....just when did "civilization" make this important rule of which you speak? Because if they had such a rule, they sure didn't live by it!!

    Baron Max
     
    Baron Max, Feb 4, 2007
    #18
  22. zenbabelfish

    zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Perhaps self-assassination is less controversial.
     
    zenbabelfish, Feb 4, 2007
    #19
  23. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    As they say, the exception proves the rule. Each time the rule is broken it's a local breakdown of civilization that sets us back. Starting with my birth during WWII I've lived to see the rule broken often enough and badly enough to understand why we should do a better job of choosing leaders who honor it.

    Civilization is remarkably durable and has recovered from aberrations of incredible scope, including, as you point out, the obliteration of one civilization by another. But you can't help wondering how much richer life would be if we hadn't lost all of those philosophies and cultural motifs. Knee-jerk Christians excuse Christendom's annihilation of the Inca and Aztec civilizations because of their institutionalized cruelty... ignoring Christendom's subsequent embrace of slavery and genocide. Muslims have no excuse at all for destroying Egypt. Between them they are responsible for the loss of one half of the earth's six original experiments with civilization, one half of a set of competing ideas that might have balanced the flaws in the one's we've been left with.

    Nonetheless, at the individual level the rule is practiced widely enough that we in fact don't devote vast time and energy to protecting ourselves from each other so we're all able to be productive. The problem with national-level breaches of the rule is that the resulting fear and disorganization cascade into personal-level breaches. Today's headline was about 125 Iraqi civilians killed by other civilians bombing a market. For all the evil perpetrated by our flamboyantaly racist soldiers over there, Iraqis are now more afraid of each other. Civilized nationhood has devolved into Neolithic tribalism. We have actually managed to bomb a country back into the Stone Age.

    And that, honorable Baron, is why the rule should have no exceptions. I'm sure you voted for your homie for president. Next time think bigger.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Feb 4, 2007
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page