Is an illegal assassination Murder?

[tdw]

Lowering one's own standards in order to match the dastardly deeds of others does nothing for one's cause, other than inspire more terror, more hatred and the inevitable further lowering of the bar.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PCP

That's terrifying: Who decides who is the right people to be murdered?

The people charged with the safety and security of the nation, like in every other case of warfare. This guy was not a criminal, he was an enemy combatant and a traitor, convicted out of his own mouth. To me that makes him a legitimate target for assassination, no different than someone like Lord Haw Haw in WWII.

Originally Posted by PCP

I guess that's the way Israelis think when they bomb Palestinian houses or the Palestinians when they send suicide bombers to Israel, or Muslim Radicals when they destroyed the Twin Towers or US when bombing Afghanistan villages were Muslim Radicals are hiding: They are all killing the right people to get killed.... at least by each one's point of view Regards Paulo

I have some difference with this. The Israelis, to the best of my knowledge, do not initiate these sorts of actions, they only respond to attacks. Their "initiation" is limited to stupidities like the continued building of settlements in disputed territory. Politically provocative acts are not the same as bombings and rocket attacks on civilians.

The comment re: twin towers is absurd - what a group of Neolithic madmen think of as justification for mass murder of civilians is not something I base my thoughts or opinions on.

Re: the U.S. and Afghan villages; this is more troubling - there apparently have been too many instances of "collateral damage" in the drone attacks but that is reason for apologies, compensation and much more care in future targeting, not the complete cessation of targeted assassination of high profile and dangerous enemies. The alternative is full on war which has a long history of causing far more death, destruction and misery. From everything I have read and heard, the CIA and Special Forces were doing a very effective job in the early days in Afghanistan but were not properly supported to finish the job - has the full military engagement since done better?

Targeted assassination of guerrilla leaders is the most effective method of dealing with them. This was proven by the Brits over many decades. They were much quieter and more discreet about it than the U.S. is but they did a lot of it in the days of Empire because it works well.

Like I said in my OP, I have no moral problem with this course of action as a self defense practice. As long as it is handled VERY carefully and held to a practical minimum, I feel it is the best, most effective and least destructive way to fight this kind of war and make no mistake, it IS war, not criminal activity which warrants full legal protections.

What would your solution be?

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by US27inKS

It looks like Palin was right, Obama does have a death panel.

Secret panel can put Americans on kill list' | Reuters

As long as my aged parents aren't on it, I'm fine with it.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by bwalker42

If They could kill him they also could have taken him alive unless they had no proof of the accusations.

I don't believe drones have arrest powers.

Arresting them, or even capturing them alive is a WEE bit more difficult than you imply.

If they start targeting people INSIDE the U.S. instead of arresting them you might have something to worry about. Until that happens, be thankful you have the people you have defending you and trust them until they have been proven to be malignant or incompetent.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

Is an illegal assassination Murder?

When Bush/Cheney does it, YES!! (It also inspires even greater terrorism)

When Obama does it, No.

Says who? I haven't seen anybody make those opposing claims. People all seem to be on one side or the other on this one. Physical torture, no and I don't support it either, mostly because it is stupid - it has been proven ineffective so many times that I can't understand anyone still using it. Psychological attacks are not torture in my book and are O/K IMHO.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by bwalker42

This is the way we lose our liberty. Glad to know which side you are on. Prove your allegations sir. Be prosecutor, judge, and jury.
TYVM

You've lost a hell of a lot more liberty due to Al Qaeda than through anything initiated by your government. Think of all the inconveniences and problems caused by increased security since 911 - all done in reaction to the terrorists actions, not initiated by a grasping Big Brother. Getting rid of THEM is the best way to ensure your liberty.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by dillybar

Again, my point is lost. The issue is not whether or not the faceless bureaucrat that decided to execute this guy had enough proof of an alleged crime. The issue is that a faceless bureaucrat decided that he had enough proof of an alleged crime.
At the very least an open trial in absentia would have lent some credibility.

True but it is multiple PANELS of faceless bureaucrats AND the President who choose and authorize such targets. They have to strike while the iron is hot so why waste time and miss potential opportunities on a show trial of a person who stands convicted out of his own mouth?

These sorts of arguments are what law students love - the real world is much harsher.

[SloopJonB]

I just realized that I have posted almost 1/3 of the responses to this thread.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't understand what I think about this topic?

[PCP]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

The people charged with the safety and security of the nation, like in every other case of warfare. This guy was not a criminal, he was an enemy combatant and a traitor, convicted out of his own mouth. To me that makes him a legitimate target for assassination, no different than someone like Lord Haw Haw in WWII.


I have some difference with this. The Israelis, to the best of my knowledge, do not initiate these sorts of actions, they only respond to attacks. Their "initiation" is limited to stupidities like the continued building of settlements in disputed territory. Politically provocative acts are not the same as bombings and rocket attacks on civilians.

The comment re: twin towers is absurd - what a group of Neolithic madmen think of as justification for mass murder of civilians is not something I base my thoughts or opinions on.

Re: the U.S. and Afghan villages; this is more troubling - there apparently have been too many instances of "collateral damage" in the drone attacks but that is reason for apologies, compensation and much more care in future targeting, not the complete cessation of targeted assassination of high profile and dangerous enemies. The alternative is full on war which has a long history of causing far more death, destruction and misery. From everything I have read and heard, the CIA and Special Forces were doing a very effective job in the early days in Afghanistan but were not properly supported to finish the job - has the full military engagement since done better?

Targeted assassination of guerrilla leaders is the most effective method of dealing with them. This was proven by the Brits over many decades. They were much quieter and more discreet about it than the U.S. is but they did a lot of it in the days of Empire because it works well.

Like I said in my OP, I have no moral problem with this course of action as a self defense practice. As long as it is handled VERY carefully and held to a practical minimum, I feel it is the best, most effective and least destructive way to fight this kind of war and make no mistake, it IS war, not criminal activity which warrants full legal protections.

You missed completely the point. I am not judging here but it is obviously that the guys that destroyed the Twin Towers believed so strongly in the rightness of what they were doing that they didn't mind to die while doing it. On their point of view, that's pretty sure. You call them Neolithic but that is not what is at issue.

The issue is that if we come to the point of having some bureaucrat deciding who is going to be assassinated for the state security we fall in Fascism or Stalinism and on the arbitrariness and insecurity. The ones United States will put in their list will not be the same the Chinese or the Russians, or The Arabs will put on their lists and if one list has legitimacy, then all have. What kind of world do you think this would generate?

I, like most Europeans, believe that killing someone is wrong. Only God should have that power (that's why on Europe there is no death penalty). Having the state murdering people without a fair trial is not wrong is more than wrong is absurdly wrong in a devious and very dangerous way.

Regarding this: "The Israelis, to the best of my knowledge, do not initiate these sorts of actions, they only respond to attacks."

Don't be naive. Israelis had been given 50% of Palestine, now they have 90%. How do they manage that only responded to attacks?

Since 2000 almost 1500 Palestinian children were killed on those responses. On the same period only died about 125 Israeli children victims of Palestinian attacks. Collateral damage. The huge disparity don't seem strange to you? Do you think this is acceptable?



Regards

Paulo

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PCP

Don't be naive. Israelis had been given 50% of Palestine, now they have 90%. How do they manage that only responded to attacks?

I always thought they got the extra 40% by winning the numerous wars initiated by the Arab states surrounding them.

Originally Posted by PCP

Since 2000 almost 1500 Palestinian children were killed on those responses. On the same period only died about 125 Israeli children victims of Palestinian attacks. Collateral damage. The huge disparity don't seem strange to you? Do you think this is acceptable?

Regards Paulo

As I have stated numerous times in numerous posts, I don't think ANYTHING to do with this conflict is acceptable. I think it is nothing but a blood feud that goes back to before the beginning of recorded history.

My comments were directed simply towards the effectiveness of the actions that Israel takes. As to the gross disparity in death toll - obviously the Israelis don't turn the other cheek but you didn't post any evidence of them INITIATING any of these tit for tat exchanges. The Israelis are (or see themselves) in a fight for their very survival so their psychology is that of a street fight - if someone attacks you with a stick, you use a knife, if they attack you with a knife, you use a gun - you put them DOWN so they don't get up again - Marquise of Queensbury rules don't apply.