Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Assassination by any other name

  1. #1

    Default Assassination by any other name

    The media has made a lot of noise over the last few weeks as details began to emerge of the assassination of a high ranking Hamas leader in Dubai. Interestingly, though, most of the consternation in Western circles has focused on the use of forged passports from a number of countries, and not directly on the assassination itself. This is a notable attitude shift; for the last decades of the Cold War, assassination was at least theoretically off-limits. The US famously had three successive Executive Orders (starting in the late 70s), progressively outlawing virtually every form of assassination, and assassinations in the 70s, 80s, and 90s aroused official concern in diplomatic circles the world over.

    Yet since 1998 there has been a major shift in the perception of assassination. It is no longer formally off the table - the US has added it to the range of options in counterterrorist operations, and many other countries have followed suit. By far the largest number of assassinations are carried out by the United States' drones in Pakistan and border regions of Afghanistan (to the tune of a couple every week, nowadays), and literally thousands of people have died in the strikes. Other countries, though, are hardly far behind - Israel pioneered the use of drones for targeted killings in the latest intifada, and much of the Western world has been quietly complicit in the ramp-up of assassinations of high ranking terrorists. Less sophisticated methods of assassination are also on the rise, from former Soviet kleptocracies to African dictatorships.

    Why the sudden shift? I spoke with a friend about this, and she maintained that assassination of terrorist targets is somehow different from assassinating a political leader of a sovereign nation (e.g. Fidel Castro and the CIA's failed attempts in the 60s and 70s). She was unable to articulate it fully, but she suggested that leaders of sovereign entities are to some extent accountable to their people, and thus more options are available short of assassination. Perhaps there is some truth buried in that idea, but I'm not sure how it informs the moral debate over assassination.

    Certainly, there are practical pros and cons to assassinations and its methodology, but let's suggest that you determine it would be best for your country if enemy X were to die. Is it morally right to order that killing, provided they are not at that time engaged in violence against your country (as a soldier might be in war)? Certainly, if one were able to capture them it might be possible to put them on trial and execute them (according to the prevailing laws). Yet is it fair to effectively carry out their sentence without a trial? What about collateral damage? Do the rules somehow change from the middle of a warzone to a hotel in a neutral country?

    I feel that most of the Western world has quietly turned a blind eye to assassination of terrorist leaders, whether military or political, but still draws some ambiguously defined line between that and assassinating political or military leaders of sovereign countries. I'm just not sure how and why this distinction has been articulated.

    Any thoughts? Why is assassination okay in some circumstances but not others? What is the moral lesson thereof?

  2. #2
    All moralities are arbitrary constructs, and we can glean little wisdom from examining them ab initio.

    This isn't to say that I'm squashing your question, what I mean is that societies tend to make up their rules as they go along, and right now it's once again sensible to assassinate from time to time. The world no longer is polarized to an insane degree, moving the proverbial pieces on the chess-board isn't tantamount to ending biological life on the globe. But, and thank Cthulhu for small miracles, despite this small respite, conflicting interests still exist, the chess board itself is still there. So the US or the UK has to torture some young kids in Afghanistan, some young kids have to strap bombs to themselves and walk into shopping malls in Israel. Morality may be their motivator, but the morality of the deeds they must do doesn't really factor into it. That is an afterthought.

    It is the lifted threat of global thermo-nuclear war that I'd see behind your friend's explanation, but maybe that says more about me than about her
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  3. #3
    Uhm... thanks for the perspective, Nessus, but I'd argue that regardless of your particular views on the morality or lack thereof, I think that the underlying debate in the Western world has been rooted in a question of morals or ethics (or at least the fundamental legal arguments rely on certain ethical precepts). Thus, presumably there must be some distinction or change that has happened to change society's opinions about assassination in such a dramatic manner. One could argue that we're just deluding ourselves that there is some legal or ethical underpinning beyond simple expediency, but I would posit that there is something more to be gleaned from our attitudes and behavior.

  4. #4
    Christ, where's Low-key when you need him

    Societies tend to follow Ohm's law, and that often means forsaking 'morals' for expediency. Of course the public discourse on morality shifts, waxes and vanes, but I am not convinced that has any bearing on the policies the society around the conversation undertakes. Especially when it comes to "outside" elements such as foreigners and prison inmates.

    And certainly there's a precedent for viewing assassination as a good and moral tool; Dustin Hoffman as a cow-boy shooting the bad guy, or what have you. That kind of base image has been prevalent since forever, and I suppose my argument up there was that it wasn't feasible to go through with that sort of action in a world where madmen had their hands on the button. Now, it's a different kind of war, and it is once again possible to shoot the bad guy in his unshaven face. The paradigm was in the sphere of armaments, and opponents, not morality, is my argument, I suppose.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  5. #5
    So why didn't we continue to try assassinating Fidel?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    So why didn't we continue to try assassinating Fidel?
    I don't know. Why didn't you? Your position seems to be that you stopped because morals shifted. Can you prove that claim somehow?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  7. #7
    I think we stopped because it became a public issue. Beforehand, assassinations were carried out by the CIA quietly. Yet multiple attempts to kill Fidel were bungled, and the involvement of the CIA in that and other assassination operations came to light. The public backlash caused three presidents, starting with Ford, to disallow it in the future.

    Now, though, American assassinations (and ones in the rest of the world) are awfully public - even Israel's quiet ambiguity hardly convinces anyone. So it's an acknowledged and very public policy... yet is wholly supported and hardly even debated. Why the change?

  8. #8
    Welp, I offered the best answer I could and didn't satiate you. Perhaps another contester will!
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  9. #9
    I think a large part of the reason for this is 9/11 and the willingness of Western states to themselves engage in assassinations. Assassinating political leaders breaks the rules of diplomacy; assassinating members of militant groups does not. While the Europeans in particular were willing to view Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups as being semi-political, and therefore subject to diplomatic protections, this stopped being true when they started targeting similar groups. Plus I think the Europeans just got more compelling issues to deal with now, and don't have the time or the resources to get involved in Middle Eastern politics for now.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    But Clinton ordered a strike on Bin Laden in '98, well before 9/11. All they really wanted him for was the embassy bombings, which were no worse than the Hezbollah attacks in Lebanon (which notably did not result in assassinations). I think serious threats certainly wisened them up to more directly confronting terrorist groups, but there must be more to it.

    I'm curious - why does assassinating political leaders violate rules of diplomacy, and what about military or scientific leaders? Iranian scientists have mysteriously 'disappeared', and no one other than the Iranians has been particularly upset.

  11. #11
    I also think Western society has developed a certain tolerance for assassinating what some may call "non-state actors", IE those who effectively can't/won't be captured by a state (Bin Laden, various targets in Yemen and Somalia, etc) or those who don't operate with that shiny feeling of international legitimacy (Hamas).

    Is it moral? On the balance, probably. The targets are generally individuals or groups who can't or won't be reigned in by a state. We have virtually no real diplomatic channels to address these types of people, who may threaten our military, civilian or strategic interests. If we just let them mosey along in the hinterlands of Yemen or Pakistan, they simply use our morals against us.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I think we stopped because it became a public issue. Beforehand, assassinations were carried out by the CIA quietly. Yet multiple attempts to kill Fidel were bungled, and the involvement of the CIA in that and other assassination operations came to light. The public backlash caused three presidents, starting with Ford, to disallow it in the future.

    Now, though, American assassinations (and ones in the rest of the world) are awfully public - even Israel's quiet ambiguity hardly convinces anyone. So it's an acknowledged and very public policy... yet is wholly supported and hardly even debated. Why the change?
    Doesn't it all boil down to the idea that in the end every rule is voided if it takes on the shape of a suicide pact? A prohibition on assassination is in line with the general morality in western society where - in general - we think that killings that aren't lawful should be punished. Applying this rule in a situation where you aren't dealing with asymetric warfare doesn't clash with the underlying rule of self preservation.

    In the post 9/11 world there is potential for the no assassination rule to clash with the underlying rule of self preservation and thus the rule will give now where it needn't beforehand. Once we return to normal circumstances, I foresee a return to the higher morality. Unlike Nessus I don't think civilization is a mere and very thin layer veiling the monster beneath. I think it's a real part of our make up, only to be set aside temporarily if it conflicts with self preservation.
    Congratulations America

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    But Clinton ordered a strike on Bin Laden in '98, well before 9/11. All they really wanted him for was the embassy bombings, which were no worse than the Hezbollah attacks in Lebanon (which notably did not result in assassinations). I think serious threats certainly wisened them up to more directly confronting terrorist groups, but there must be more to it.

    I'm curious - why does assassinating political leaders violate rules of diplomacy, and what about military or scientific leaders? Iranian scientists have mysteriously 'disappeared', and no one other than the Iranians has been particularly upset.
    Those were isolated incidents. They certainly weren't something Western leaders gave much thought to (the fact that Clinton had numerous chances to kill Bin Laden but refused to pull the trigger to avoid diplomatic fallout proves as much).

    Political leaders represent the state. Military leaders do as well, but to a lesser extent. According to Western rules of diplomacy, sovereignty can only be violated in times of war, and even then representatives of the state should be immune from being targeted. Otherwise, wars would never end. Scientists aren't sovereign representatives. Plus presumably the Europeans think that if they say nothing about Israel taking out the scientists, Israel won't take more extreme measures.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I feel that most of the Western world has quietly turned a blind eye to assassination of terrorist leaders, whether military or political, but still draws some ambiguously defined line between that and assassinating political or military leaders of sovereign countries. I'm just not sure how and why this distinction has been articulated.

    Any thoughts? Why is assassination okay in some circumstances but not others? What is the moral lesson thereof?
    Is it a moral issue? To an extent, not engaging in or accepting assassination as policy has always been a "gentleman's agreement" because to do otherwise invites messy reciprocity. General assassination is also of questionable utility. That tends to apply to civilian targets though. Military officials in open conflict have always been somewhat more acceptable targets. And the modern assassinations you're referencing mostly fall more into the latter category than the former *Israel made a fairly open exception to that in recent years, I recall*
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    No problem with assassinating terrorists.

    Now if (in some strange alternate reality) Germany got into a tiff with Poland and it came to shooting, assassinating the countries leaders by either side would be off limits. Why? Because both countries are not engaged in acts of terrorism and have been freely elected.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    No problem with assassinating terrorists.

    Now if (in some strange alternate reality) Germany got into a tiff with Poland and it came to shooting, assassinating the countries leaders by either side would be off limits. Why? Because both countries are not engaged in acts of terrorism and have been freely elected.
    Is there any chance that some assassin would consider you a terrorist? I mean if all it takes is designating someone as a terrorist then it's just organized anarchy isn't it?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Is it a moral issue? To an extent, not engaging in or accepting assassination as policy has always been a "gentleman's agreement" because to do otherwise invites messy reciprocity. General assassination is also of questionable utility. That tends to apply to civilian targets though. Military officials in open conflict have always been somewhat more acceptable targets. And the modern assassinations you're referencing mostly fall more into the latter category than the former *Israel made a fairly open exception to that in recent years, I recall*
    I don't know about your side of the pond, but with the general rejection of even lawfull killings, I'd say that Europeans by and large would call this a moral issue.
    Congratulations America

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Is there any chance that some assassin would consider you a terrorist? I mean if all it takes is designating someone as a terrorist then it's just organized anarchy isn't it?
    I seem to hardly fit the definition. And its not about what the terrorist thinks it is what the body of nations that make up civilized society thinks.

    For example if Osama Bin Laden was captured, it may be possible for him to be given a trail for war crimes. (I would disagree with giving him a trial or for treating him with any rights as he is not a US citizen and should promptly be interrogated by our nice friends overseas who don't have silly rules on not roughing up terrorists). But if he tried to assassinate a president of America or the leaders in Europe yes he could be tried.

    However if someone assassinates Bin Laden they themselves won't have to stand trail. Why? Because Osama is a terrorist. He is recognized as a terrorists by the world bodies.

    Not that I particularly care what the world thinks because America doesn't need permission from the UN to defend itself.

  19. #19
    I'm going to say the consequences and results are what make the difference. Consider the ramifications of killing the leader of a nation, compared to the killing of a leader of a militant group. In one instance you've removed the head of a state, violently, possibly upset and enraged the citizens of said nation or in fact caused unrest, and the country will soon have a new leader who may be just as problematic or more-so. Killing the leader of a militant group removes someone with knowledge, resources, and experience that benefits that group, at most you've pissed off the militant group and those who agree with it, and whoever is going to take over for the person assassinated is likely not going to be as experienced as the person they are replacing...
    . . .

  20. #20
    Leaders outlawed assassination because they were themselves afraid of being assassinated…

    Look at the US, we’re outlawed assassination so you should do the same Russia!!! It’s like an arms talk, with out the actual sit down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

  21. #21
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I'm going to say the consequences and results are what make the difference. Consider the ramifications of killing the leader of a nation, compared to the killing of a leader of a militant group. In one instance you've removed the head of a state, violently, possibly upset and enraged the citizens of said nation or in fact caused unrest, and the country will soon have a new leader who may be just as problematic or more-so. Killing the leader of a militant group removes someone with knowledge, resources, and experience that benefits that group, at most you've pissed off the militant group and those who agree with it, and whoever is going to take over for the person assassinated is likely not going to be as experienced as the person they are replacing...
    The head of state replacement would also be less experienced and knowledgeable, and it would mostly upset his supporters too. Others would be upset that you breached their sovereignty by attacking their politicians, but killing anyone in another country without that country's permission is a breach of sovereignty which will piss people off (Dubai is pissed now, too, as are European countries because their passports were abused).

    The main difference is that terrorist leaders are seen as leaders of militant (non-state) groups at war with us. In a war killing enemy combatants is not a problem, even if it is outside the actual war zone (and Pakistan could be considered a war zone, and that's where most assassinations occur). It has, especially with drones, more the air of a legitimate military strike than a murder. Downside is you can't capture them and get information, of course. The point is whether you consider terrorist organisations combatants or criminals, e.g. are you at war with them and can you justify just killing them, or are they criminals who should be captured and tried in court. The current atmosphere makes them combatants, at least with Islamic terrorists in other countries. Organisations like ETA are still considered criminals it seems, and assassinating them would go down less good with the public opinion, I think.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I don't know about your side of the pond, but with the general rejection of even lawfull killings, I'd say that Europeans by and large would call this a moral issue.
    Yeah well, the European public would consider sneezing a moral issue. I don't recall policy-makers in Continental Europe being dreadfully concerned that there were a few IRA leaders which the Brits chose to kill rather than take into custody and put through the criminal process. I could be wrong, of course.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #23
    If there is no consistent boundary between good and evil, morality can't exist.
    Who cares about animal killing morality?
    Who cares about political assassinations?
    Who cares about human rights?
    Who cares about terrorists?
    Who cares about pedophile priests?
    Who cares about torture?
    Who cares about holocaust?
    Who cares about genocide?

    Certainly morality is not present in this world, and if it is, it is used for hypocrite purposes.
    No criminal thinks he is doing something wrong, perhaps "not allowed" or "illegal", but not wrong.

    Lots of cases of genocide took place since 1939 and no one did anything, specially US.

    VIDEO: CNN - Christiane Amanpour - Screaming bloody murder

  24. #24
    I'd argue that there's a difference between strikes in de facto war zones (Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan) and strikes in non-warring areas (Dubai). The former is legitimate targeting of command structure in war. The latter is assassination.

    So I think you're conflating two things that are really separate. Take away that conflation, and you take away your puzzlement; the US actually hasn't been engaging in assassinations. Or am I missing something?


    PS as an aside, perhaps the turn of sentiment against assassination in the US was due to domestic assassination? When it's become a form of political expression in your own country, it becomes pretty damned disturbing, right?

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    I'd argue that there's a difference between strikes in de facto war zones (Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan) and strikes in non-warring areas (Dubai). The former is legitimate targeting of command structure in war. The latter is assassination.
    I find this difference silly. People just die.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Yeah well, the European public would consider sneezing a moral issue. I don't recall policy-makers in Continental Europe being dreadfully concerned that there were a few IRA leaders which the Brits chose to kill rather than take into custody and put through the criminal process. I could be wrong, of course.
    The way I remember that there was an actual investigation into that. You are talking about the situation in Gibraltar aren't you?

    P.S. the ECHR condemned that shooting as a violation of the human rights of the killed IRA operatives in 1995.
    Congratulations America

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    I find this difference silly. People just die.
    That's nice, but maybe it would mean something if you could support your arguments for a change.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    The way I remember that there was an actual investigation into that. You are talking about the situation in Gibraltar aren't you?

    P.S. the ECHR condemned that shooting as a violation of the human rights of the killed IRA operatives in 1995.
    I don't think I'm talking about Gibraltar, no.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •