Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Assassination: villainy or virtue?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

07:44 / 16.09.02

It's been mentioned in the Press, and legal hinderances have been removed already. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Now the question has been asked in another thread - is assassination a more acceptable option than war?

Most Barbelith posters accept that Saddam Hussein is not a good man, as far as I can see. No one appears to question that the world would be a better place if someone less like him were in the driving seat in Iraq. And yet I don't think it's a good idea.

Of course, I'm anti-war under most circumstances as well.

More to say, but would like some opinions on the table.

08:31 / 16.09.02

One death to save thousands - definitely a good idea in the short term.

The problems arise (in my humble opinion) from the precedent it sets. If you can assassinate another head of state, on whose authority would you do it? The UN is never going to sanction such an action, and if not the UN then effectively it's just "I say it's a necessary evil" and the next thing you know you are in a mutual bloodbath. States need rules of engagement and those rules need to apply even in crises - indeed, particularly in crises when otherwise the escalation of violence would reign unchecked. Without those rules of engagement I think the long term result would be (potentially) far, far more harmful than could be justified by a short term gain.

Incidentally:
(i) The legal restraints on America assassinating another head of state are still in place I believe. This comes from a 1960's act which I am not aware of having been annulled which would be a legislative act - it's rather different from a Presidential decree against use of assassination in foreign countries / toppling regimes by the CIA etc. being removed, which is an administrative act.
(ii) Assassination of heads of state is still contrary to international law and even the laws and practices of war. Yes, I know it seems odd that there is such a thing, but the law of war is well established and assassinations of heads of state is right out. Everybody tries it of course, but it is sort of illegal. I say 'sort of' because the laws of war are really odd - criminal liability is a almost always jurisdictionally limited, and I (a lawyer) have never quite understood how you impose an international law. I mean - who prosecutes, who judges and who enforces sentence? The UN war crimes tribunal in the Hague is a great idea but undoubtedly has difficult legal questions over its validity - which Slobodan is pointing out to some considerable effect at present in his trial.

09:15 / 16.09.02

Assasination as a mean of diplomacy is frightening, but less so than war. Would it be effective? When we talk about the current regime in Iraq do we mean Saddam Hussein as a person? Would his death mean the end of the current administration?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:39 / 16.09.02

Fist - I thought the prohibition on assassination was the consequence of Ford's executive order? Or was there more to it?

I have a problem with it because of the category of action it falls into. It seems to carry a lot of other possible actions along behind it. "Aggressive interrogation", anyone?

Also, weirdly, there's a question of how low on the social ladder you can "legitimately" assassinate someone for international reasons. I mean, sure, heads of state who are evil, but how far down the list does it become an attack on a civilian etc. etc.?

10:14 / 16.09.02

not to mention the problems of getting warring heads of state to a negotiating table if they feel underpressing threat of assasination...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:32 / 16.09.02

This is such a weird discussion, you know. How many attempts have there been to whack Saddam over the last fifteen years? And we had nothing to do with any of them? Like hell.

People try to kill Saddam so often he has doubles all over the place. We actually have no way of knowing he's alive. Maybe we're getting rhetoric from a committee of doubles who never get any new orders because the original is dead...

Aiee. My head hurts.

13:24 / 16.09.02

People try to kill Saddam so often he has doubles all over the place.

Welllll... Saddam fears assassination so much he has doubles all over the place.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. But it doesn't mean they are, either.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:34 / 16.09.02

Surely the question here is not the moral one- is it better to kill the guy "we're at war with" than a bunch of other people? That should, I would think, be a no-brainer.

The question IS, as far as I can see- yeah, "we" kill him... what then? The west has proved singularly unhelpful in Afghanistan so far... If you're gonna assasssinate a head of state, then you should take some responsibility for what comes after. Will that happen?

I mean, really?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:01 / 16.09.02

Jack - there have been more than a few attempts to hit Saddam. I've just done a quick search and these were the first few to come to hand:

Is it somehow not assassination if you use a plane?

The Bay of Camels (this is my favourite): 1996 - The Bay of Camels - CIA's biggest flop since Cuba. Urged on by President Clinton, CIA mounts an elaborate coup against Saddam Hussein. Iraqi exiles, armed and trained by CIA, to march on Baghdad from US/British ruled Kurdistan. CIA organizes a cabal of generals to assassinate Saddam. Public places in Baghdad are bombed, many civilians killed, in order to `destabilize' Iraq (this while the US is busy denouncing terrorism). But Saddam's spies have infiltrated the plot. The whole operation collapses. CIA's agent network in Iraq is rolled up. Many Kurds back Saddam, turn on pro-US Kurds. CIA agents in Kurdistan run for their lives, abandoning allies and tons of documents. Saddam is strengthened. CIA's inept Director, John Deutch, fired for this Mother of All Fiascos.

Mossad setback

Jerusalem Post...

Gah. This whole thing makes my head hurt.

.

15:22 / 16.09.02

So here's the problem then (in simplified terms):

Premise 1) Saddam's rule in Iraq is a bad thing, either for us, or for Iraqis, or both. Let's take this as said for the purpose of argument.

Premise 2) Deposing Saddam will eliminate the cause of our or the Iraqis' (or both) suffering. Again, let's take this as said.

3) War is bad.

4) State-sponsored assassination is bad.

5) A popular uprising under certain conditions would be good. However, there is no resistance movement to fuel such an uprising.

6) 3, 4 and 5 are the only way to depose a tyrant. There are no other ways to get rid of Saddam.

Conclusion) There seems to be no "good" way to get rid of Saddam.

So, which premise is at fault here?
I wouldn't be happy to say that it's 3 or 4. And I suspect that 5 is true too. So I really hope that 6 is not true. But I can't think of any other ways to remove a tyrant from power... Are there any?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:37 / 16.09.02

Keyword: "depose".

15:48 / 16.09.02

Could he be lured out with the offer of a fat, juicy paycheck from the private sector? hmmm. Set him to work as an executive, where he can hold meetings with peers on the world's finest golf courses, served by capitalist slave-children; Hiring and (mostly) firing; ordering the "removal" of treasonous financial documents by the millions. But these things would only succor him for a limited time, sadly. And it would be a real ego-bruising demotion. However, if he starts losing doubles by triplets, it might seem a more attractive offer than it first appears.

Actually, I can't believe that there's still a question in the world that an assassination would be to anyones benefit. Take the words "Iraq" and "Saddam" out, replace with nation/leader of your choice, and the moral absolute of the "superior" position quickly erodes. The issue (and US policy) seems to be mostly based on iivix's 2nd premise

eposing Saddam will eliminate the cause of our or the Iraqis' (or both) suffering. and I can't believe that's being sold to us. The precept that a country will roll over and play dead when ONE MAN is removed is... fucking fictional, actually. If it actually does (assuming someone sends gift-wrapped ninjas to Saddam), well, that's even more frightening.

07:05 / 18.09.02

Fist - I thought the prohibition on assassination was the consequence of Ford's executive order? Or was there more to it? Nick

You are correct. I checked this out and I was under an illusion. The prohibition on assassination originated with Ford's executive order and was restated by a Regan executive order. It doesn't appear to have been removed yet, although I could be mistaken on that (although I suspect it would have come back on all the Google searches I did if it had been).

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:42 / 18.09.02

Fist -

I think the situation is murky.

Licensed to kill:
Now, according to reports in Washington, the president has decided that the general ban on assassinations need not apply to particular terrorist or terror group.

The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has effectively confirmed the turn-around by describing such covert operations as self-defence.

It's assassination - but only in self-defense:
President George Bush has upped the ante against Iraq by authorising US special forces to kill Saddam Hussein if they were acting in "self-defence".

So the executive order remains in force, but has been parleyed into an executive not-very-much.