Is there some point, some conditions, the assassination of a political leader should be valid? What are these conditions? Does this assassination would prevent an atrocity or simply make others take charge of perpetuating?
I do not think so , assassination of political leaders will anyway put any check on atrocity on depleted section of the society. This is an extreme form of aggression . It is a system that is faulty , not the persons who are associated. Let us hate the act , not the person..
Assassination of a political leader is not valid, rather against human rights!
There other ways to correct the politician, instead of killing him/her.
A human should not kill another human. Thus, assassination cannot be allowed in any condition. A wrong political leader should be changed in a democratic way even if it would take a long time.
Dear Ricardo,
Under no circumstances, the assassination of political leaders should happen. There is judiciary to take care of the justice and its up to the judiciary to decide, whether the political leader should be punished or otherwise based on the convictions.
The assassination of one leader in one country had led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the nearby country in the recent years. This could have been avoided. I saw the pains of those innocent people, who suffered.
Thus, the assassination is not THE RIGHT ANSWER for the political punishments.
Regards.
Sekar Gopal.
@Ricardo: Agree with "these [= especially our ] days - assassination of political leaders (whomever you might have in mind and whatever odious crime such "man" may have committed) is no solution at all.
I see the problem (if seen from a personal, emotional aspect) but one has to (SHOULD!) cope with such a crisis as a community (keywords: civil disobediance, civil courage, civil alignment and searching, finding and gathering kindred spirit . This might be troublesome (and painful) for a long while but when (wo)man(-kind) comes to power dictatorship and tyranny (at least 2 features we normally would associate with "assassination of political leaders) could be shaken off and wiped out....
Yes, I believe that if the whole resident population would arise, stand up and firmly stand together it should be able to overcome insufficient and inhuman statesmanship. But (for several most recent examples to think over "assassination") I miss strong will of people to come to power themselves....and shake off the yoke..)
@George Stoica: "... Romania's dictator Ceausescu's trial and execution. The conditions of the removal (not assassination) were called "communism". This removal brought closer the victory of the popular uprising against communism, limited the number of deaths, and eased the transfer of power into "the right hands". (End of citation, RE#02): I remember well those days when WE - in the "free, democratic, and saturated WEST(ern Europe)" were witnesses of the hunting, bringing quarry to bay, accusing of many (political as well as inhuman) offences and - after "trial" .... more less immediate execution in a back courtyard (not remembering whether this really was the truth or just as a biased retrospection) without an official lawsuit/court proceedure. IMHO it might have been more rewarding to Romanian people if that "process" weren't closed that fast.... (ok, I am Austrian...so I was not in the [mental as well as physical] position ROMANIAN people were at that time (see above: population "coming to power").
NB: if my assumptions/considerations for the Romanian Case are wrong, I honestly ask for correction! Thank you.
During the Ghanaian Revolution in 1979, two ex-Heads of state and some Ministers were executed for corruption. As I write now, corruption is one of the greatest problems that the country is grappling with. Termination of life cannot be a solution to a wrong that has been done. Prof. Muss example could only be one among thousand.
Justice is main thing. If a political leader is causing death of innocent civilians, he must be stopped by any means.
I don't agree with assasination but with justice. In the case of Angola I have to agree that the assasination of the oponente Savimbi lead to the development of Angola. But the oponentes of Savimbi could have taken pacific measures towards him in place of the murder.
I don't agree with assasination but with justice. In the case of Angola I have to agree that the assasination of the oponente Savimbi lead to the development of Angola. But the oponentes of Savimbi could have taken pacific measures towards him in place of the murder.
Assassination isn't always morally wrong. Some moral codes allow for this. The reason is that assassination punishes the people responsible for the decisions and it affects their future decision-making and the decision-making of those who subsequently come into power. Unlike other techniques like mass civil disobedience assassination cannot be accused of harming common people, interfering with their lives and work.Assassination of a dictator may be the only way to effect change in a country .There is no way to bring tyrants guilty of terrorizing 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.
Dear George, certainly I have to agree/ AGREE with your comments above and I remember a news-TV - short scene that particular year, where we saw parts of the frightening execution (before and after). And yes...history seems to have been generous.... Best regards, Wolfgang
It is my humble opinion that society and people have a duty to do the right thing. A leader that is a bad person should be punished. In the world today most would say it is not our place to judge others. I would say that if we do not do something than we are the guilty party. Those that do nothing but have the power to help stop the crimes are more at fault than those that commit the crimes. Remember what we are talking about here is not the "Queen of England" it is people that kill and imprison or in slave others for their own gain.
In this sense it is the worlds duty to remove them and "all" the other people that support them. I am not a fan of killing for any reason but as a hero of my child hood Martin Luther King Jr. once said that "a threat to freedom ANYWHERE is a threat to freedom everywhere". If we as a society sit back and watch others die we may as well have pulled the trigger ourselves. What I say is where is the outrage? Is this because we are so special that other lives do not matter?
I understand that not all crime and killing will be eliminated but as a whole we must work harder to stop the crimes of corruption of power, and greed. Crimes of passion are horrifying but crimes of power kill the world.
When it comes to dictators if they kill for pleasure and in slave people then we should use every bit of our power to stop them and it does not matter if their system thinks it is "OKAY" or not.
There should be a new ethical code that allows crimes of power and greed to be convicted in an open court with the facts listed. There should be no peers in the court as this is having the fox guard the hen house.
There should be a chance for the changing of the system to allow the current type of government to continue if so desired and a chance for the person or persons in charge to give up to the court. After that the entire world would close them off in every way possible. Trying to feed the people and innocents of the country in any way possible and to stop the suffering of them. Then force them to give in. If the whole world would just say we will not put up with this it would stop and we could move on to a truly modern society not the criminal one we have today, where the one with the most power money and control gets to kill others with impunity.
This attitude of its not our business will lead to the destruction of everyone's freedom.
If they allow killing, imprisonment, ethnic cleansing, and on and on to better their own position only not to better the country then they are in the group. There is no set definition but we can look at the world leaders to day and point out several that fit the bill. Yet we will set back and pretend that is is not our business if others are killed for personal gain. North Korea, Syria, and more are just a few to list.
It is not Rocket Science. And if we could cut them off from the entire world in stead of just talking a good talk we could change the world view.
To George Stoica:
I see no big difference between Romanian case and enormous amount of ancient Hellenic and Roman cases.See e.g., Plutarch's "Parallel Lives": artful plots, cruel murders of rivals and relatives that were an obstacle on the way to the throne... poisonings...Ultimately most of this killings were forgotten... Indeed, the history is very generous. The Laws are changing, but not the Commandments
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the archduke of Austria-Hungary. His death at the hands of Gavrilo Princip – a Serbian nationalist with ties to the secretive military group known as the Black Hand – propelled the major European military powers towards war with million and million of deaths.
Indira Gandhi, the 3rd Prime Minister of India, was assassinated at 09:20 on 31 October 1984, at her Safdarjung Road, New Delhi residence.[1][2] She was killed by two of her bodyguards,[3] Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, in the aftermath of Operation Blue Star, the Indian Army's June 1984 assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar which left the Sikh temple heavily damaged. Over the next four days, thousands of Sikhs were killed in retaliatory violence.
On April 6, 1994, an airplane carrying Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down on its descent into Kigali, killing all on board. Genocidal killings of near a million Tutsi took place in the following 100 days.
I have the opinion that as a matter of principle the assassination of a political leaders is not the way to solve political problems within a country. This not means that in some specific conditions of serious violation of the constitution of a country or actions of similar characteristics a political leader shall be remove from their duties and subject to a just trial.
I think what is missing in our days is the process of Ostracism (Greek: ὀστρακισμός, ostrakismos). It was a procedure under the Athenian democracy in which any citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. It was used as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or potential tyrant.
According to Plutarch the ostracism was considered valid if the total number of votes cast was at least 6,000.
In our modern “democracies” it would be great to incorporate this type of Negative vote to equilibrate very negative personalities that are funded by specific financial centers.
According to "assassination” this is a crime. I recall the Kennedy’s assassinations, the assassination of Che Guevara, the assassination of Salvador Allende, President of Chile, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords and so many others that could change the history of the humanity.
In current times, democracy is driven by unclear financial centers and, we should find ways to reinstitute the method of Ostracism to save democratic values. It will be urgent to apply these democratic methods in countries that control the destiny of the world.
The assassination of a leader or any other form of violence is never and will never be a solution to any political problem.
There is no objective criteria for deciding who is good and who is bad.
"Good Democracy" during last decades made as much atrocities, even more, than bad Hitler and Stalin.
Political assassinations are never the solution to any problem, in fact, it starts the beginning of termination of that organization/group or its ideology. One prime example is LTTE in SriLanka. LTTE was one of the most deadly terrorist organizations is the world; It had its own airforce and it was the first organization to start using humans as suicide bombers. They were notorious for High profile political assassinations including former Indian Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi, Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa and many other high profile ministers and military commanders in SriLanka.
But LTTE was exterminated by SriLankan Army by 2009 when it head Prabhakaran was killed by Srilankan forces. I think LTTE would have done more favors for their own people had they not involved in political assassinations and took part in non-violent political discussion to gain more rights and powers for their own Tamil people in SriLanka.
Assassination of political leaders is not the solution to any problem. Rather it plunges the nation-state into the state of anarchy. Assassinations bring strong reactions and destruction all around.
The assassination of a political leader is not justified ever. We did have assassination of a leaders in Serbia in our history! Zoran Djindjic was brutally killed, Milosevic , who was dictator for many years, was killed in Hague's Tribunal. Karadjordje was killed, ...! I do not like such history of leaders!
Ljubomir,
''Milosevic , who was dictator for many years, was killed in Hague's Tribunal''
Here is another version:
On 11 March 2006, former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević died in his prison cell from a heart attack,[1] while being tried for war crimes at the ICTY in The Hague,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87
There are many versions my dear @Louis. Why they did not allow him to be treated in proper Institution, as his medical team required? Such situations also bring many doubts. When you read different sources, not only the one that you have used, you will get more proper and truthful facts.
I am a Serb who wanted Milosevic to be punished in his own country for his crimes!
Dear @Louis, I do not agree at all with your words: "The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the archduke of Austria-Hungary. His death at the hands of Gavrilo Princip – a Serbian nationalist with ties to the secretive military group known as the Black Hand – propelled the major European military powers towards war with million and million of deaths."
This was the occasion that the planned war starts, not the reason. Serbia has not committed war crimes in the great war, but Austria, Germany ...!
Ljubomir,
I am not aware of such allegations. Lets assume that they are false and that Milosevic was put in prison in humanly fair condition and without denied of proper medical care and put on trial. This is the hypothesis I will adopt unless given specific facts. What I see as being unfair because it is assymetric is the fact than much worst political criminal in recent history are not put on trial by the same tribunal for terrible crimes against humanity but they are protected by major political power and this tribunal can do nothing against them. So what is unfair is that only the political criminal that are not under powerfull protection are at risk. Basically if you are a political leader or a high ranking official of a powerfull country or a country that get approved by a powerfull master then do what you have to do for your nations and you do not have to worry about war crime tribunal but all the other leader of the wordls and their official the message is You , and only You can be trial by the powerfull nations. It is the justice of the big bullies against the small bullies. Remembered that Pinochet was arrested in London and accused in Belgium for crime against humanity. He had powerfull patron and so could retired peacefully in its country. The same that happen after the WWII at Nuremberg where only the germans were trialed. The problem I have with the Milosevic trial is not that he was trialed but that only him among an armies of bigger war criminals was trialed. What is the justice for these millions of vietnameese farmers bombed in North vietman or burned by napalm bombs. Nobody were put on trials for these atrocities and war crimes. A lot of them are well alive and when they will dye peafully they will be honoured by obitury that will emphasised how they served their nation and some will be buried in national cemetary. While their million of victims lay in unmark graves with nobody to remember them. This is a shame. It is as if the little justice we have is only applicable to the weakess and that is thus an instruments of the injustice of the powerfull bullies of international order. It is like we live in a society with mafia in power and a justice system for small criminals competing the mafia.
Even if one such war criminal is walking our street and receive high honour we should not assasinate him because this would glorify him further , to make us even more forget about his crime and portrey him as dying in the line of duty with the martyrs of the nation. We have to destroy the lies onto which they thrived and glorify themself and are honours. We can assasinated these lies with speech. And when long after their death , only when their nations would be ashamed of themself and of them, then only we should unburried their bodies from the national cemetaries and bury them in cimetary of shame, cimetary for the ennemies of humanities and send a clear signal to all the powerfull.
It was under Clinton administration the decomposition of Yugoslavia took place. That was a crime against humanity that continues to pay with thousands of post-war cancer and related diseases in the area (including Italy and Greece).
To remind Yugoslavia was a major technological player in the Southern Europe and a stabilizer of Balkans. In the coming days Montenegro will join likely NATO (Warsaw summit in July 2016) and Fyrom did not reach NATO because under Bush administration Greece put a veto. So, what was really the focus of Yugoslavia destruction? Exactly what is the Syria case or before the Iraq case and so on.
Coming to the question concerning the assassination (CRIMES) of political leaders: Sadam Hussein was the best ally of the US/UK. So, the question comes with the case of Milosevic in Hague's Tribunal. Data suggest that “everything should be under control even the Hague's Tribunal and the Sovereignty of any country”. This is the case of Greece today with the financial coup-d’état.
The globalized system does not need examples, civilizations that are different from the mainstream and the mainstream imposes that everything should be aligned with the virtual power of money. No ethics, no moral, no examples of a different vision or type of social progress should exist.
So, the question comes urgent in the coming elections in the USA, what for to get another Clinton or Trump?
http://www.kushnirs.org/macroeconomics_/en/yugoslavia__gdp.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Yugoslavia/BillClintonsWar_Yugo.html
Dear @Vasilis, thanks for your nice answer. Clinton ant Tony Blair are war criminals, as NATO organisation bombed Yugoslavia without UN decision!
Dear @Lous, you have said in your response "...This is the hypothesis I will adopt unless given specific facts...."
There are many facts, here is one. It was written by non-Serb specialist!
"An international medical team has called for an immediate halt to the activities of Slobodan Milosevic. The doctors, who examined him on November 4th at the UN Detention unit in The Hague, say that Milosevic needs "a minimum of six weeks'' rest.
The medical team, comprised of Dr. Florence Leclercq, a French cardiologist; Dr. Margarita Shumilina, a Serbian vascular specialist; and Dr. Vukasin Andric, a Russian ear specialist, said that Milosevic's health condition was "unstable" and that complications could arise if he does not get sufficient rest.
President Milosevic's legal associate, Zdenko Tomanovic, told the media on Sunday that Milosevic has been suffering from worsening pains in his neck, ears and head.
The Judges are expected to receive the medical report on Tuesday. If they accept the doctors' advice, the trial should not resume until January of next year. However, the tribunal may attempt to continue the trial in absentia, in which case another witness boycott will ensue.
The tribunal has imposed two British "defense lawyers" on Milosevic against his will, Mr. Steven Kay QC and Ms. Gillian Higgins. Milosevic does not recognize or speak to either of these lawyers, nor do his defense witnesses.
This would not be the first time that the tribunal has attempted to continue the trial in absentia. Earlier this year, defense witness Kosta Bulatovic was convicted of contempt because he refused to testify in the absesnse of Milosevic.
Article 21.4 (D) of the the Hague Tribunal's statute, as well as Article 14.3 (D) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees every accused person the right “to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person.”
Unfortunately, the incident with Kosta Bulatovic has already proven that principles such as the law, and the rights of an accused, are irrelevant as far as the Hague Tribunal is concerned."
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111305.htm
@Ljubomir: apologize for my asking for your help:
would you mind to say / write some fact(s) about the URL of the organisation you cited
(yes you are right, I could do it myself, but I am not sure if I were able to understand without digging deeper into the specific matter. Thank you!)
since - as an honest Serbian citizen you are located in the central area of Republika Srpska and certainly easier are forming an opinion about politics, politic leaders and politicians (historic, former present ) in your country.
Last but not least I confess that for many interested persons it will be difficult to find out the (100%) "truth". The former circumstances at that time, the former (real as well as "true") documentations, etc., might have been forgotten by most of uninvolved and younger human beings...... and in the discussion between Ljubomir and Louis I could find true parts in the one as well as in the other's reply....
respectfully yours, Wolfgang
Dear @Wolfgang, I am in Republic of Serbia, not the Republic Srpska. Republic Srpska is the entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Regarding the url http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org , it was formed out by people who were in favour of Slobodan Milosevic. There was a Committee for defending Slobodan Milosevic. It was an international one. Unfortunately, it is not updated for a long time, just some old documents are available. I believe documents. As a person who was against Milosevic and his party, I do not speak about him as innocent. No, I do speak about facts. My impression was that it was better to judge him in Serbia.
So, I do suggest you and the followers of this thread to watch Noam Chomsky about Slobodan Milosevic and Hague. It was after he has passed away.
Regarding the discussion between Louis and myself, let me tell you that I do have a great respect about Louis and his opinion.
Dear @Wolfgang, I have a lot of books about Milosevic that I was fighting against for 25 years. Do not hesitete to contact any time.
Unfortunately, Slobodan Milosevic has became a symbol of anti-globalism, thanks to Western powers!
The attached article is very good one about Milosevic!
The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqQz7BJA9ag
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Milosevic.html
Ljubomir,
When a leader of a nation committed a crime within its nation, like Pinochet, then if this nation becomes democratic and that the political forces that were supporting that leader are not controling the judiciary process, nor the forces against him, but the judiciary process is fair, then and only then it is appropriate for the justice of the nation to judge its own criminal.
In the case of Slobodan Milosevic we do not have these preconditions. His alleged crimes were against other nations and the forces within your nation that were still supporting him were still very strong. I do not want to speculate if your justice system would have been immuned to these forces but the alleged crimes were of inter-national nature. For such inter-national crime, an international tribunal, that is fair, has to be used to ensure a fair trials were the victims could have a voice. One nation should not self-judge its own crime against another nation. It should not but it is what happen in most wars where the victors do the judging of their former ennemies. Serbia was an allied of the looser side at the fall of the Berlin wall. Yeltsin was stupid, and Nato succeeded in pushing russian realm of influence totally out of eastern europe and Serbia was the obstacle to break in this process.
George,
I understand your viewpoint. That russian presence in Eastern Europe for half a century after the WWII was surely not a good situation for a lot of eastern europeans of the generation of your parent and yourself. I knew a few Romanians that flee to the west while living in Montreal. Nonetheless I do not think that Russian should be excluded from Europe and that it is good for Europe to be under a US military alliance that tries up to today to continue of cold war against Russians. I basically think that Russians are culturally Europeans and the US are not. There should be a way for Europe to get rid of this American subordination militarily, political and financial and to include Russians, Ukraine . Europe cannot be built as a collection of vassal states under the US. Europe has to exist politically on its own. In the 19th century until the WWI, there were 5 major european powers (including russia) and the anglo French american alliance wan the WWI and set the stage for the downfall of eastern europe after the WWI which set the stage for WWII and what happened after (I know the story is awfully more complex than this one). Don't you think it is about time for Europe to come together and leave the US out instead of leaving the Russian out.
''The assumption in Moscow was that once it was known that he (Tito) had lost Soviet approval, Tito would collapse; ‘I will shake my little finger and there will be no more Tito,’ Stalin remarked.[18] The expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states, while other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged "Titoists". Stalin took the matter personally and attempted, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Tito on several occasions. In a correspondence between the two leaders, Tito openly wrote:
''Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Serbia_relations
Dear Ljubomir....thank you for your friendly response to my erroneous naming of the Republic of Serbia! I have to apologize failing to use the correct term "Republic of Serbia"... (I located the City Požarevac ca.90 southeast of Belgrad/Beograd knowing this (as Austrian) to be "SERBIA". I do not know really why I used the name "Srpska" which in my mind ("brain") obviously was interwoven (semantically-similar pronunciation perhaps*) with the name (Serbia) but - as I know now** - is the proper name of one of two constitutional and legal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina ( BiH ).
*The second word (i. e. "SRPSKA") is a nominalized adjective derived by adding the suffix -ska to srb-, the root of the noun Srbin, meaning Serb. Its Capital since 1998 is Banja Luka.
**cf.: https://www.google.com/search?q=srpska+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Apologies again.
Thank you also for commenting on the web-page as I asked for... I shall go deeper into the matter(as you proposed) when I have a bit more time left. For me it is an interesting recall of 'historical' occurences (and it is ashaming what we /one have/has forgotten within only some years (if recalling the beginning of "military" actions approximately late May 1992). Thanks also for your offer to ask anytime questions about the matter. Best wishes and regards, WM
Dear @George, Serbia will be better with EU, definitelly, but not with NATO for many reasons. I do know some fine countries that are not in NATO, and those countries are neutral as Serbia should be. We were bombed by NATO "because of Milosevic", so why didn't NATO killed Milosevic, but many innocent people!?
Dear @Louis, TITO was a Master of fraud, the one who has played successfully between East and West. He was a rowdy who has lasted for decades as Communist dictator. You are right about Europe, we should prevent strong American influence.
Following the exchange on former Yugoslavia and the assassination of Milosevic and thousands of innocent people, I would like just to say that my impression is that the war in Balkans did not end. It continues silent.
The demolition of former Yugoslavia was just the beginning. Apparently, there are important financial and geopolitical interests in the area that opposed the new German hegemony and US. The difference is that 2016 is not 1991 as Moscow regain power and China continues to infiltrate in the area using business strategies. The 1st step in the demolition of Yugoslavia was done by Germany (German Minister of Foreign Affairs Hans Deitrich Genscher).
Today we have a similar situation with Greece which is under the political and financial control of Germany. The next step will be the integration of Montenegro to NATO this July and then the Albania-Kosovo-Fyrom case together with the very hot problem of immigrants in the area.
Coming to the events of Yugoslavia, and as it can be confirmed by the press “from May 1991, the Western media was full of biased, anti-Serb reporting, frequently claiming that the communist Yugoslav National Army from Serbia was conducting naked aggression against the innocent, democratic, pro-western people of Croatia and Slovenia”.
It is reported that at 05.00 hrs on July 9, 1991, the then German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hans Deitrich Genscher, telephoned the US Secretary of the State for Foreign Affairs James Baker, demanding resolute action by the UN Security Council and the Western Alliance against the Serbian terror in Croatia. During his early morning telephone call, Herr Genscher pushed hard for economic sanctions to be placed on Serbia and Montenegro, and that Croatia and Slovenia be recognized as independent states.”
“T.W. Carr, Associate Publisher, Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications. London
GERMAN AND US INVOLVEMENT IN THE BALKANS: A CAREFUL COINCIDENCE OF NATIONAL POLICIES? Presented at the Symposium on the Balkan War
Yugoslavia: Past and Present, Chicago, August 31-September 1, 1995”
Ljubomir,
''Serbia will be better with EU, definitelly, but not with NATO for many reasons. I do know some fine countries that are not in NATO, and those countries are neutral as Serbia should be.''
Your position reminds me of the former international initiative of Yougoslavia after 1948 of not siding with one of the two super power. the Non-aligned movement was an extremly positive in that era of insane cold war. Your current position although in another international context is against one of proud independence and sanity and non-alignment with NATO military alliance. EU should get rid of this cold war remnant that I think is the main obstacle to the EU political maturity. Your nations is one of the small european nation in population but these big european nation but one of the rare that is proud enough to not submit.
Regards
I don't know what you mean by "valid".
In a state of war one warring party could justifiably explain killing the leader of the second warring party. If that is accomplished by a direct attack by one person who happens to be a citizen of the country of the leader that is killed, that could be considered an assasination. On the other hand, if it were accomplished by some more indirect means directed by the first warring party, it probably wouldn't be considered an "assasination". The result is the same result.
If your meaning is "are there circumstances in which the murder of a political leader by one of the citizens of the country of said leader would be considered an absolute necessity" then there is no real answer. Whether something is an "absolute" necessity (and that is essentially the meaning of "valid" as I perceive it) is always a subjective question.
In any case, so as not to open the door to anarchy, I think that even if the deed were to be considered "valid" by a vast majority of the world population, the perpetrator should stand trial and in most cases be sentenced to jail. Certainly there can be no possibility of allowing killing of human beings (evil as they may be) with no trial at all - because that would essentially allow every one of us be be judge, jury and executioner.
All that said, if you were to ask me if I would have killed Adolf Hitler (as an extreme example of a leader who caused more death than almost any other in the history of the world) if I had had the chance ... the answer is probably yes ... but even in that case, I would have expected to be tried for murder.
Part of having convictions (political, moral and otherwise) must include being willing to pay the price for those convictions.
Marc,
''Part of having convictions (political, moral and otherwise) must include being willing to pay the price for those convictions.''
If we take the example of these Jyhadist matyrs in Paris; they were willing to pay the ultimate price: their life for their actions. THey believed that their actions was justified and their sacrifice is a testimony of this; Now does it justify their actions? I do not think so. But I agree that being willing to pay the price is one of the many requirements that would be required to justify such action. The most important requirement, a much more difficult to achieve, is to know that this assination will not trigger a worst chain of events. Knowing what we are really doing is extremely difficult much more than how to do it and even the acceptation to pay the price. Killing is always tapping into an enormous reserve of violence out there.
Louis,
Thank you for your insights.
I certainly agree that being willing to pay a price does not in any way justify every action (and there is no doubt in my mind that the intentional killing of innocent people is a deed that can NEVER be justified).
Unfortunately, I have no idea how anyone can positively "know" that an assination (or any other activist deed) "will not trigger a worse chain of events". I do agree that the more extreme the measure taken (and assination is extreme), the more the possible consequences must be investigated and weighed before the act ... but in the end we must all do what we think right and just, in hopes that we really will succeed in making the world a better place. If we take into consideration that we just might be wrong, then there is some chance that we will make fewer mistakes than we are liable to make if we are 100% sure that we are right!
I think the answer depends almost exclusively on who writes the history because the justification or rationalization's validity is a function of retrospective analysis conditioned on the prevailing social and political context at the time of the analysis. Hence, the validity of the act can be interpreted differently over time.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Computing