Edit] ] ] ] ] Regime change: Is assassination a good means to regime change?

] Edit] Yes Illegitimate tyrants can be assassinated if it's the only way to freedom If a tyrant comes to power by illegitimate, undemocratic means and directly suppresses, harms, and kills the citizens of a state, that tyrant loses all legitimacy to the continued occupation of office. If it is impossible to depose the leader by more subtle means of opposition and democratic voting, the only route to freedom may be assassination. In such cases, assassination is certainly justifiable. Tyrants directly jeopardizing societal welfare can be assassinated If a tyrant directly contravenes societal welfare, it can be justified to assassinate him or her. Dictators often uphold regimes alone; assassinating them will end the regime. Dictatorial systems are highly personal, so removing the driving force behind such a regime will result in its collapse, allowing a more popular and liberal government to replace it.

] Edit] No Killing dictators will not cause the fall of a regime. Killing one individual will achieve nothing; dictators are part of a wider ruling elite from which someone sharing the same autocratic values will emerge to take their place. This successor is likely to use the assassination as the excuse for further repression. Failed assassination attempts can help strengthen a tyrant. If an attempt is made on the life of a tyrant, one result is that the tyrant will become more paranoid and take measures to strengthen his or her grip on power. Another result is that supporters of the tyrant and fence-straddlers may come out in support and unity behind their leader. This would leave a people worse off as far as deposing their tyrant. Assassination attempts, therefore, entail great risks of back-firing.



Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Change: Is assassinating a dictator a good means to affecting change?

] Edit] Yes Assassinating a dictator can help correct the behavior of a regime. Assassination of a dictator may be the only way to effect change in a country where a repressive police state prevents any possibility of internal opposition. Cowed populaces need a signal in order to find the courage to campaign for change. If there is no way to bring tyrants guilty of terrorising their own people to justice, then assassination can be justified. And the example elsewhere of assassinated dictators will act as a warning to would be tyrants in future. The alternatives to assassination would all leave a dictator in power for many years. In that time not only will many more people suffer under a repressive system, but the policies pursued by an out-of-touch and unrepresentative regime are likely to do serious (if unintentional) harm to the whole nation and its economy, making eventual rebuilding much more costly in both human and economic terms.

] Edit] No Assassination can counter-productively rally citizens around a regime. Assassination is likely to be counter-productive, rallying popular feeling around a repressive regime as external enemies or internal minorities are blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the act. This is even more likely to result from an unsuccessful assassination. Furthermore an alternative now exists for bringing dictators to justice. Regime change has been shown to be possible in a number of countries and former dictators are being held to account for their actions. The Special UN Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has been able to put Slobodan Milosevic on trial, and Saddam Hussein is facing justice in Iraq. The International Criminal Court now provides a permanent forum for such action to be taken, and is itself a deterrent to would-be tyrants in the future. To liberalize a regime, there are better ways than assassination. Alternatives such as constructive engagement or economic sanctions are preferable and much more likely to result in eventual liberalisation of the regime, albeit slowly. The examples of Eastern Europe in 1989 and Yugoslavia in 2000 show that even in apparently hopeless cases, change can come through popular action, often quickly and without great violence. Cambodia in 1979, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 all saw dictatorships quickly overthrown by external forces.

Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Morals: Can assassination be justified on moral terms?

] Edit] Yes Assassinating a dictator can be a utilitarian good for a society. many deaths and much suffering could be prevented if one man is killed. The greater good demands a single evil act is done, especially if it would avert the immediate and certain danger of much worse evil. Who now wouldn’t wish that Hitler had been killed in 1933? Moral absolutes should not prevent broader morality. If scruples over the morality of our actions prevent us pursuing a greater good, it will never be possible to oppose evil effectively. Dictators themselves ignore normal ethical standards and international conventions, so they effectively place themselves beyond the protection of the law. Philosophers throughout history have supported tyrannicide Fr. Williams Saunders. "Does the Church Condone Tyrannicide?". Herald Columnist. September 27th, 2001 - "Tyrannicide has had support from various philosophers and theologians through the centuries, including the ancient Greeks and Romans, most notably Cicero; Catholics, most notably John of Salisbury (d. 1180) Jean Petit (d. 1411), and Suarez (d. 1617); and Protestants, most notably, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin." And, Thomas Aquinas. ] Edit] No The idea that assassinations can prevent evils is questionable. The argument that much evil can be prevented by such action is highly questionable. The figurehead of an evil government is not necessarily the lynchpin that holds it together. Thus, if Hitler had been assassinated, it is pure conjecture that the Nazis would have acted any differently to how they did act. Moral absolutes exist; murder can never be justified. If we assume the role of executioner without the backing of law we are sinking down to the level of the dictators. Any new government founded upon such an arbitrary act will lack moral legitimacy, undermining its popular support and making its failure likely. Consider the long civil war in Rome after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C, or the failure of the British Commonwealth after the execution of Charles I in 1649. Legitimizing assassination cheapens the value of life. By assuming the power to take life arbitrarily, even in an apparently good cause, we cheapen the value of life itself. Many terrorists, criminals, or indeed dictators could and have claimed similar legitimacy for their violent actions. Only if we ourselves respect human rights absolutely, will our promotion of these values seem valid to others. States that use assassination as a political weapon will soon find that others seek to turn it against them. Even tyrants have a right to life, which assassinations violate The right to life is inviolable. It is so important to preserve that we even extend it to tyrants.



] Edit] Yes Dictators are a threat to international peace, not just their own people. Their tendency to attack other countries in order to divert attention from their unpopular actions at home means that assassination is justified as a means of preventing a terrible war, which might rapidly become a regional or global conflict.



] Edit] No Sometimes dictatorship is preferable for international stability. It has often been in the interests of the great powers to support autocrats who would promote their geopolitical interests in a way that a democratic regime would not, especially in the cold war period. Sometimes dictators have successfully held countries together which otherwise might have descended into civil war and ethnic strife. Events in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was deposed have shown that even worse violence and suffering can be unleashed if a strong hand is suddenly removed. Assassinations breed destabilizing counter-assassination attempts Gal Luft. "The Logic of Israel's Targeted Killing". Middle East Quarterly. Winter 2003 - "Another drawback: assassinations of key political and military activists may invite similar attempts on the lives of Israeli leaders." Assassinations erode norms against assassination; jeopardizes leaders. One of the reasons that governments decided that they should not assassinate other leaders was that this helped uphold a standard that protects a state's own leaders. If governments attempt to justify some assassinations, these norms are undermined and world leaders become more vulnerable to attempts on their lives.



Edit] ] ] ] ] ] International law: Can assassinations of tyrants be justified in international law?

] Edit] Yes Assassinations are justified in self-defense, preventing imminent attack Abraham D. Sofaer. "Responses to Terrorism. Targeted killing is a necessary option.". San Francisco Chronicle. March 26, 2004 - "Using force in international affairs is not merely risky, it is always controversial. Yet, targeted killing is sometimes necessary, because leaders are obliged to defend their citizens, just as police forces are obliged to defend communities." If tyrants can't be brought to justice, assassination is a good idea. Tyranny and oppression are obvious wherever they take place. It isn’t just how democratic a regime is, it is whether it uses its power to inflict great suffering upon its people or others, against all human rights standards. If leaders guilty of genocide or other crimes against humanity can be brought to account through the normal democratic process or the courts, then fine. But if they cannot, then their people have the moral right to take up arms against them. Sometimes this will mean assassination. Assassinating terrorists is justified/legal when they are "combatants" In international law, it is legal for a state that is engaged in a legal international conflict to kill "combatants". When terrorists and militants can be considered "combatants", it is legal to kill them.

] Edit] No Assassinations follow no legitimate legal processes. Assassinations includes only the discretion of security services in deciding to kill a certain individual. This lacks due process process entirely. Decisions on assassinations would be unjustly undemocratic. Who decides who deserves to be assassinated? Politics is not a black-and-white affair and states regarded by some as dictatorships are seen quite differently by others. For example, Slobodan Milosevic could claim a popular mandate for many of his actions in the former Yugoslavia. General Pinochet in Chile seized power by force but later gave it up, allowing a democratic state to emerge. Many authoritarian rulers around the world today pay at least lip service to democracy, even if elections are “managed” and the possibility of real change is strictly limited. Even if we had the right to make judgements as to which leaders deserve to die, our decisions would be arbitrary and without widespread support. Assassination attempts are driven by invalid ideological considerations. By what prerogative would the USA feel itself best placed to decide which democratically elected national leaders should be assassinated? Presumably, such a decision would be based entirely on ideological grounds (as far as the media and the publicj were concerned) and economic grounds (as far as the politicians and their corporate bosses were concerned).

Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Sovereignty: Do assassinations uphold the sovereignty in the international system?

] Edit] Yes Tyrants forgo sovereign rights, making assassination attempts legitimate Sovereignty is not always inviolable. To the extent that a government acts unjustly, its legitimacy as the sovereign ruler of a state is diminished. A true tyrant may lose all legitimacy to govern his or her state through unjust acts. In such circumstances, the sovereignty of the state (which can only be held by a government or a tyrant) is diminished and it becomes more legitimate to consider assassinations.

] Edit] No Assassinations infringe on the sovereignty of foreign political entities. When a foreign government enters the sovereign territory of a state to perform an assassination, they breach the sovereignty of that state.



Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Collateral damage: Can assassinations avoid collateral damage? Is it worth it?

Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Targeted assassinations: Is it appropriate to assassinate terrorist leaders?

Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Hitler: Would if have been justifiable to assassinate Adolf Hitler?

Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Saddam Hussein: Was there good reason to support assassinating Saddam Hussein?

Edit] ] ] ] ] ] Hugo Chavez: Were any calls for assassinating Hugo Chavez justified?

] Edit] Yes The US would be justified in assassinating Hugo Chavez "Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president". Media Matters for America. August 22nd, 2005 - "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."



] Edit] No Chavez should not be assassinated as he poses no real military threat. The idea that Chavez should be assassinated because of an unsubstantiated threat that he represents to the military complex that is the USA is devoid of any value whatsoever. Chavez represents no danger at all to the USA - any conflict between them would be not be on a level playing field! If Chavez should be assassinated, what about President Bush (an international threat) I assume that we would have to abandon any ethical viewpoints on this. In other words, moral equivalence would not be considered. Foreign nations would not be allowed to assassinate the president of the USA because of the (rather more evident) threat that he poses to national and international security. Assassinating Chavez would be based only on US hegemony. The argument that Chavez - and any other political leader who stands up and faces down US hegemony - should be assassinated is predicated on the rather base belief that as the USA is currently the most powerful military complex on the planet, it should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies. In fact, if we are being more precise, we should say that as the most powerful interests in the USA are in command of the most powerful military complex on the planet, they should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies in the pursuit of consolidation and extension of their privileges.



Edit] ] ] ] ] ] US law: Are assassinations allowable according to US law?

] Edit] Yes Ford's 1976 executive order against assassinations doesn't apply in war-time. In War-Time, including in extended conflicts with terrorists entities, the use of assassination can be legitimate, particularly if the target is considered a "combatant". The 1976 executive order does not forbid assassinating terrorist leaders. Ford's executive order did not account for terrorists and "enemy combatants".

] Edit] No Engagement in political assassinations is forbidden by US law In 1976, US President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 that clarified that the US government cannot legally engage in assassinations.

