[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

We assassinated (IIRC) Yamamoto in WWII. I'm not sure I'm clear on the distinction between bombing a factory, sniping an officer, and assassanating a ruler.

For that matter, didn't we drop bombs on spots we thought Hussein or top advisors would be?

Good point. I stand corrected. I remember, the very early part of the Iraqi war (before the "ultimatum" even expired) consisted of the US lobbing cruise missles at Hussein.

[maadio]

However isn't it a good point that most of the time (especially if the guy was popularly elected) there's another guy right behind him ready to do the same job he's doing? Power like that creates a massive vacuum behind it if it's removed quickly, and that vacuum always seems to suck up something ugly.

Maybe I'm not allowed to participate in this conversation, actually, since I'm from where I'm from. Pat Robertson does live like 20 miles from me.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But Bush gave an "OK" for the government to carry out assassinations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...582588,00.html)

We assassinated (IIRC) Yamamoto in WWII. I'm not sure I'm clear on the distinction between bombing a factory, sniping an officer, and assassanating a ruler.

For that matter, didn't we drop bombs on spots we thought Hussein or top advisors would be?

Yes, all that's true, except that Yamamoto and Bin Laden were/are combatants in a war, whereas Chavez is neither a combatant nor are we engaged in conflict with Venezuela. Arguably, both Chavez and Hussein represent a 'center of gravity' of command and control, but I don't think either one had day-to-day operational control of armed forces in the way that Yamamoto or an officer would (though I may be very wrong about Hussein).

Traditionally, and according to Geneva conventions if they're not in uniform, holding a gun, etc., they're not considered combatants (with exceptions like chaplains).

[JerryLove]

There is none, he is a threat to America, and therefore should be taken out. He declared war on the United States when he orchastrated 9/11. The Clinton administration should have taken him out when they had the chance in the 90's

But you just said that you were against assassinating the leader of another country (post 7). Which is it?

I do not think when we were bombing Iraq it was wrong to drop bombs in the area we thought Saddam and his military advisers were at.

How is that different from an assassination (heck, how is that not actually an assassination?).

In general. Its less messy than a war to accomplish the same thing. Basically, I am for using the least amount of violence possible to accomplish the necessary ends. I don't know enough about Chavez to say, but some examples of who we should have assasinated were Hussein, Amin, and a few others whose regimes were murderous.

I tend to agree. There is a valid reason that we instituted our no-assination policy though... US leaders didn't want to get assassinated.

Yes, all that's true, except that Yamamoto and Bin Laden were/are combatants in a war, whereas Chavez is neither a combatant nor are we engaged in conflict with Venezuela.

I was not really asserting whether Chavez was someone who should be assassinated so much as wheter assinations were valid tools.

You feel assassinations are OK when open hostilities exist between the assassian and the target, but not when they do not?

Traditionally, and according to Geneva conventions if they're not in uniform, holding a gun, etc., they're not considered combatants (with exceptions like chaplains).

Right, they get less than combatant-status (spys, criminals, etc) and so do not have the protections that combatants have.

[need_help0113]

so are you libs opposed to any mention of assassination, or is it just becaues pat robertson said it?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You feel assassinations are OK when open hostilities exist between the assassian and the target, but not when they do not?

I think the law would make that distinction, yes. But on my end, I'm becoming more and more of a pragmatic pacifist the more I think through the whole scope of modern warfare. I wouldn't be for assassination in any context at this stage in the game.

I don't have large enough testicles to be a pacifist on principle, unfortunately.

Right, they get less than combatant-status (spys, criminals, etc) and so do not have the protections that combatants have.

Uhm.. No. A civilian, even a uniformed non-combatant (like a chaplain) has more protections than a combatant. You can't shoot unarmed civilians, for example, but you can shoot spies and terrorists.

[maadio]

Well I'm a conservative and I'm against Pat Robertson specifically saying it. It's one thing (still very easily wrong) to call for an assasination. It's an entirely different thing (out of the question) to call for one from the pulpit...

[JerryLove]

Uhm.. No. A civilian, even a uniformed non-combatant (like a chaplain) has more protections than a combatant. You can't shoot unarmed civilians, for example, but you can shoot spies and terrorists.

I've just discussed non-soldiers vs soldiers. (vs armed, uniformed soldiers). We execute criminals without breaking Genevia. We execute spys without breaking Genevia. We apparently incarcerate terror suspects without breaking Genevia. If we did any of these to enemy soldiers, we would be in violation of the Genevia convention.

I doubt that the Genevia convention has a blanket proscription from shooting unarmed civillians either. It's a classic scenerio: You and your team are far behind enemy lines doing reconissence when a farmer plowing his field spots you. He runs off shouting for the authorities. Your intelligence gathering is compromised and your team is in danger if he makes it. You shoot him.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's a classic scenerio: You and your team are far behind enemy lines doing reconissence when a farmer plowing his field spots you. He runs off shouting for the authorities. Your intelligence gathering is compromised and your team is in danger if he makes it. You shoot him.

Maybe it's all the video games I've been playing my whole life that have desensitized me to violence, but I tend to agree with Jerry on that small point. Especially since you're already going to have to kill somebody... it might as well just be the one guy.

But Robertson is still a nutjob with good intentions but no common sense.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by need_help0113

so are you libs opposed to any mention of assassination, or is it just becaues pat robertson said it?

Both. Now stop calling people names. This is an acedemic forum, not a drunken, bar room argument. If you can't make a point without using personal attacks, then please don't trip over the doorstep on the way out.

Because it is an unethical system that we have *never* (officially) done as a nation that I hope we never do.

Officially being the key word. The 23 attempts on Fidel Castro's life were of course, unofficial, as was the assassination of Patrice Lumumba (while the US didn't actually shoot him, Washington certainly approved of it). If the US does make an official policy of it, they'd just be making official what they've been doing all along. At least then their policy wouldn't be hypocritical. But if we're talking about wishes, and ending hypocritical policy, I'm with you in liking to see them stop assassinating people altogether.

Example Israel's assassinations I am ok with. For the reason that they are bombed once a week, and hundreds of innocents are dying.

And in that case, assassinations have only inflamed their situation (the more Hamas leaders they killed, the more anger it aroused in the Palastinian community, the more suicide bombers flocked to Hamas), which is why they're beginning to rethink their previous convictions on the issue. And in any case, I don't understand how you think that being attacked by suicide bombers justifies assassination (especially in a political situation as complex as Israel and Palastine). In fact, your logic justifies the suicide bombers' actions.

In general. Its less messy than a war to accomplish the same thing. Basically, I am for using the least amount of violence possible to accomplish the necessary ends. I don't know enough about Chavez to say, but some examples of who we should have assasinated were Hussein, Amin, and a few others whose regimes were murderous.

Assassination can be less messy than outright war, at least from our perspective (ie - it's not our troops dying), but for the people living in Nation XYZ, it usually turns a messy situation into a bigger mess. Come to think of it, I can't come up with any one instance where it hasn't ended up making a huge bollocks of the country where it was employed. Usually, the result is disorder and civil war as different groups attempt to grab what power they can from what the old regime has left behind.

I doubt that the Genevia convention has a blanket proscription from shooting unarmed civillians either.

Actually, it does. The act of attacking civilians who are not directly engaging you is prohibited expressly by Supplementary Protocol II. It's been in force since 1977. Even if combattants are hiding among non-combattants, attacking non-combattants is prohibited.

It's a classic scenerio: You and your team are far behind enemy lines doing reconissence when a farmer plowing his field spots you. He runs off shouting for the authorities. Your intelligence gathering is compromised and your team is in danger if he makes it. You shoot him.

It's a risk that you have to accept doing LRRPs that you'll be discovered by civilians, but attacking them intentionally and directly makes you a war criminal. Most Western armies won't do it anyway, because it presents a lot of other headaches, especially if you do end up being captured.

There is none, he is a threat to America, and therefore should be taken out. He declared war on the United States when he orchastrated 9/11. The Clinton administration should have taken him out when they had the chance in the 90's

Do we really have go through this dissertation AGAIN?

If we're playing couldashouldwoulda, then Reagan and George H. Bush shouldn't have armed him, trained his guerrillas or funded him. The Republicans made Osama bin Laden when it fit with their anti-Communist crusade, so don't try and blame what happened on Clinton - it's stupid and myopic. As per his being a threat to the US, what do you hope to accomplish by killing him?

I do not think when we were bombing Iraq it was wrong to drop bombs in the area we thought Saddam and his military advisers were at.

Do you not have a conscience? It was okay to bomb an entire area because he might have been there? Consequently, a lot of innocent people died, and Saddam Hussein wasn't where people thought he was. None of the bombing raid succeded in anything but killing people other than the person whom they were ostensibly supposed to kill. And you have no conscientious objection to this? Heck, why not just turn the whole country into a giant crater while you're at it?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by need_help0113

so are you libs opposed to any mention of assassination, or is it just becaues pat robertson said it?

Jerry - the biggest proponent of assassination so far in this thread, is a liberal. So am I, the one who posed the original question and still doesn't see a problem with the idea.

I love ignorant people. Why do people have to turn everything into a partisan issue? Dear crap I'm sick of this country being so divided arbitrarily.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper359

Do you not have a conscience? It was okay to bomb an entire area because he might have been there? Consequently, a lot of innocent people died, and Saddam Hussein wasn't where people thought he was. None of the bombing raid succeded in anything but killing people other than the person whom they were ostensibly supposed to kill. And you have no conscientious objection to this? Heck, why not just turn the whole country into a giant crater while you're at it?

I have a huge effing conscientious objection to that*, which is why I don't have a moral objection to assassination. (Barring logistical/practical issues, which weren't really meant to be the subject of this thread,) why not just take out the targets we want to take out more precisely instead of laying waste to (relatively) massive areas and risking collateral damage?

*Please don't take my language here as me being heated or angry - I'm just trying to properly convey the intensity with which I hold to this statement.

[JerryLove]

Actually, it does. The act of attacking civilians who are not directly engaging you is prohibited expressly by Supplementary Protocol II. It's been in force since 1977. Even if combattants are hiding among non-combattants, attacking non-combattants is prohibited.

When will Bush be appearing before a war court over the dead civillians in Iraq?

It's a risk that you have to accept doing LRRPs that you'll be discovered by civilians, but attacking them intentionally and directly makes you a war criminal. Most Western armies won't do it anyway, because it presents a lot of other headaches, especially if you do end up being captured.

In the two cases I am aware of it happening in Iraq, one group took the shot and one did not (the one that did not was discovered by three children).

Jerry - the biggest proponent of assassination so far in this thread, is a liberal. So am I, the one who posed the original question and still doesn't see a problem with the idea.

Kinda funny aint it? Though I'm not a carte-blanch supporter, I do see a valid place for it.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

When will Bush be appearing before a war court over the dead civillians in Iraq?

That would be the day, wouldn't it? It's not going to happen, though.

In the two cases I am aware of it happening in Iraq, one group took the shot and one did not (the one that did not was discovered by three children).

It happens frequently, but there's never any recourse for those who do shoot. Which is why there's really no way to justify complaining about the other guys not abiding by the rules - since we don't, and we never really did.

I have a huge effing conscientious objection to that*, which is why I don't have a moral objection to assassination. (Barring logistical/practical issues, which weren't really meant to be the subject of this thread,) why not just take out the targets we want to take out more precisely instead of laying waste to (relatively) massive areas and risking collateral damage?

Given the choice between the two...I'm not sure which is worse. On the one hand, if we shoot the guy, we're not killing a lot of innocent civilians - directly, but then we have to factor in what happens after the regime falls. Which is almost always disorder, if not outright civil war. More Iraqis have been killed since Saddam Hussein was captured than in the bombing raids. And if we assassinate someone, what kind of a precedent is that setting? What if the international community decided that the US was too powerful, and that there had to be a regime change?

If we really want to get rid of someone (we shouldn't put them in power in the first place, but that's another discussion), the UN and the international community has the ability to do it through economic sanctions. Now on the other hand, that can lead to us just sanctioning anybody who doesn't agree with us, and bankrupting countries over ideology. Hmm. That's not much better. I'd have to say that the lesser of the evils is to apply a Security-Council-approved sanction system, then simply let the dictator run their course, die on their own, then be ready to move in with the UN to stabilise the country (through a mission that would fit somewhere between Chapter 4 and a Chapter 5 parameters - Chapter 4.5, as General Dallaire called it) and start the whole political process over again. At the moment, I'm thinking of Zimbabwe, but the same could apply to the DRC, Libya, North Korea, etc. It was showing signs of working in Iraq as well, but was unfortunately cut short.

[size=1]*Please don't take my language here as me being heated or angry - I'm just trying to properly convey the intensity with which I hold to this statement.[/quote]

I understand, Dan, and I wasn't suggesting that you had no problem with mass murder. I was replying to the comment about laying waste to whole areas being justified to kill Saddam Hussein, that guitarmonkey made. The question was directed to him.

[JerryLove]

On the one hand, if we shoot the guy, we're not killing a lot of innocent civilians - directly, but then we have to factor in what happens after the regime falls. Which is almost always disorder, if not outright civil war.

That would be one of those practical concerns (would the effect be good).

And if we assassinate someone, what kind of a precedent is that setting? What if the international community decided that the US was too powerful, and that there had to be a regime change?

Right now the strong do that to the weak. It would be a more level playing field.

I'd have to say that the lesser of the evils is to apply a Security-Council-approved sanction system, then simply let the dictator run their course, die on their own, then be ready to move in with the UN to stabilise the country

I'd like to restructure the UN so that it does really relfect an enlightened consensus and then empower it to control the activities of nations.