Assassination by national governments

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I started this thread in Political Debate so as to not derail the discussion of events unfolding in the Middle East.

Lil Marco is a neocon shill. I could honestly care less about what he says.

A shill can be right, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

Assassination is a not a viable tool for democracies. How you do things determines the outcomes you get as much as what you do. With this assassination, Trump has lowered the US to Suleiman's level, to the detriment of our democracy. (And no, assassinations by Bush and Obama we're not okay either.) The rejection of law, courts and Congress in favor of murdering opponents is a favorite of the Republican party. For the sake of our democracy, I hope they never reap what they so eagerly sow.

Just so we're perfectly clear, are you condemning the Obama administration for asassinating Osama Bin Laden?

I was speaking of his drone assasinations by executive fiat, particularly of American citizens. (Criminals, even traitors like Trump and his Cabinet, should get trials and not summary executions.)

To the best of my knowledge, the misson to "get" bin Laden was launched with the intent of capturing him for trial, with the understanding that meant "dead or alive" if he fought back. Bin Laden was not a officer in any internationally recognized government, and was wanted for his criminal actions. (As a general rule, I think terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such, not legitimized by declaring war on them. ISIS, as a de facto state, would be an exception.)

Killing Sulimein on Trump's say-so is a rejection of the rule of law and war. It's a summary execution of another nation's military officer. Had he even been charged with any crrimes? If it had been done in a war zone, that might provide a fig leaf of cover. But he was blasted at an international airport. This looks like nothing but a suopremely arrogant case of "might makes right", which is an abhorrent ideology.

Just as an example, if Putin ordered Sec. Pompeo killed while visisting Ukraine it would be no different, legally, that what Trump just did. Would anyone cheering this on be eager to see that outcome? I certainly am not.

[T'Chenka]

Hypothetical - What if this guy had just retired ffom official militsry duties or had just quit in order to become a free lance mercenary general? I mean, quit 5 or 10 days ago, very very recently. In that scenario, what if Trump claimed that they "attempted to capture him before having to kill him instead", ike Bin Laden, despite providing no evidence tbat this was the case. Keep in mind that he would still have very good friendly relations with Iran and a very good reputation and favourability with your average Iranian citizen.

Based on your criteria provided, would this be okay?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Hypothetical - What if this guy had just retired ffom official militsry duties or had just quit in order to become a free lance mercenary general? I mean, quit 5 or 10 days ago, very very recently. In that scenario, what if Trump claimed that they "attempted to capture him before having to kill him instead", ike Bin Laden, despite providing no evidence tbat this was the case. Keep in mind that he would still have very good friendly relations with Iran and a very good reputation and favourability with your average Iranian citizen.

Based on your criteria provided, would this be okay?

Is this hypothetical popular Iranian general a public and official guest (or employee) of the government of Iraq or is he in hiding? Has he been indicted as bin Laden was?


Alternative hypothetical:

Next week, Sec. Esper and several American generals are blown to bits by an airstrike outside Lviv as they visit Ukraine. Putin addresses the Duma and explains that he ordered Secretary Esper's killing because he was operating as an illegal arms dealer to illicit Ukrainian forces who had used US-supplied weapons to murder innocent Russian civilians living in the Donbass and was planning more attacks in concert with elements of the Ukrainian government (although he makes it clear he doesn't hold President Zelensky responsible). Is that okay? (I sure as hell don't think so.)

[T'Chenka]

Hypothetical - What if this guy had just retired ffom official militsry duties or had just quit in order to become a free lance mercenary general? I mean, quit 5 or 10 days ago, very very recently. In that scenario, what if Trump claimed that they "attempted to capture him before having to kill him instead", ike Bin Laden, despite providing no evidence tbat this was the case. Keep in mind that he would still have very good friendly relations with Iran and a very good reputation and favourability with your average Iranian citizen.

Based on your criteria provided, would this be okay?

Is this hypothetical popular Iranian general a public and official guest (or employee) of the government of Iraq or is he in hiding? Has he been indicted as bin Laden was?


Alternative hypothetical:

Next week, Sec. Esper and several American generals are blown to bits by an airstrike outside Lviv as they visit Ukraine. Putin addresses the Duma and explains that he ordered Secretary Esper's killing because he was operating as an illegal arms dealer to illicit Ukrainian forces who had used US-supplied weapons to murder innocent Russian civilians living in the Donbass and was planning more attacks in concert with elements of the Ukrainian government (although he makes it clear he doesn't hold President Zelensky responsible). Is that okay? (I sure as hell don't think so.)

He is neither in hiding nor an official Iraqi guest, simply a man doing private business.

Your hypothetical is not okay, I agree. Those Americans were members of the US government and that is an act of war by Russia .

[brucejoel99]

I think most defenders of such assassinations would argue from a utilitarian standpoint, as it could certainly be argued that, by killing one person (a Soleimani, perhaps), many other people would be saved.

It could also be defended from the perspective of Virtue Ethics: the virtuous man protects & defends the innocent whenever he can. Prudence is also a virtue. Thus, in a situation where the most prudent course of action for defending the innocent is assassination, then the virtuous man would take that approach.

Moreover, they could still be defended from the perspective of Natural Law, too, as it dictates that we must behave according to human nature, & generally permits the taking of an aggressor's life in the defense of the innocent, as that's according to the proper nature of human beings. The law of double effect, it would seem, would permit assassination, provided that the assassinated were guilty of a proportionally heinous crime AND that the assassinated is in such a position that his own state cannot take such action against him (e.g. Soleimani).

Even a Deontological Principle, wherein one is compelled to defend the weak against injustice, could defend this position; indeed, it's pretty easy to do so. If the maxim is "do what you must to protect the innocent," then you will not hesitate to assassinate the guilty in defense of the innocent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Taking someone's life is only morally justifiable if the person would otherwise have culpably caused the loss of someone else's life, there was no other way of preventing that, and doing so wouldn't ultimately result in greater harm.

[atheist4thecause]

These issues are often grey. They often come down to justification. International law of war isn't like normal law, it's more like a guide. The world agrees that this is how wars are to be fought, but if a country breaks the law, that doesn't mean they are to be punished necessarily. It's up to the countries around the world to asses the situation and determine if the action was just or not. If not, they determine how they want to respond. Countries follow international law because they don't want to take the political hit for not doing so.

The comparison of Pompeo to Soleimani is not equivalent. Soleimani is a general. Pompeo is not. Pompeo is the Chief Diplomat, but he does not have a military role. It would be more like if General Clarke was killed because he was training groups in Iraq to attack Iranian embassies. If that was what was happening then Iran would be justified in assassinating General Clarke.

[Buffywawa]

Ask Africa about that.