Back in the 70's President Ford signed a law which prevented the U.S. from attempting politcal assassinations. My question is, would it be better to legalize assassination again. Would it help keep us out of wars? I am just wondering what people think out there.
Poll
Bring back legalized political assassinations?
| Yes | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| No | 100% | 100% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 4 | ||||||
No, because it's world policing, and I don't think we should. Besides, if we did, Hugo Chavez would be the first to go for some bullshit. Just because you don't agree or like the US doesn't make you evil. A mentality that needs to change.
Just thought about it too. "OH HO! YOU DARE OPPOSE US IN THE U.N. MR. CHIRAC?"
Imagine that outcome.
Imagine that outcome.
But what about taking out Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq? Would you have been for that? I am just wondering if it would be better to just take out the leader.
I don't think we would take out any European leaders, but the possibility of taking out someone like Kim Jong Il might be too great.
I doubt that would have changed anything. Most likely, either one of his sons or high-up generals would have seized control after he was killed.Deuceman wrote:
But what about taking out Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq? Would you have been for that? I am just wondering if it would be better to just take out the leader.
Ok sorry I meant take him and his sons out. I don't know if the generals would have been able to keep the same power. Anyways just playing Devils advocate for a bit.
well said.Ikarti wrote:
No, because it's world policing, and I don't think we should. Just because you don't agree or like the US doesn't make you evil. A mentality that needs to change.
besides, it's not as easy as it sounds. i can't even count how many times the US has tried to assassinate castro and failed.
plus, even if it were to succeed, its a very unsportsmanlike thing to do. i know that sounds stupid in a wartime situation, but it's true. we're upset when terrorists attack us without giving any warning...what better would we be if we just went into a country, killed their leader, then left. granted, one is civilian based and the other is a strategic military target...but it's the same basic idea. also, if it were to succeed, it would give that country even more reason to hate the US. in the long run, i think it would cause more problems than it's worth.
World War I was started by a political assassination and the domino effect of treaties.
I say if you can't beat an opponent fair and square in the political arena, then you need to find a better game strategy.
I say if you can't beat an opponent fair and square in the political arena, then you need to find a better game strategy.
ThomasMorgan has a great point. What if it happened to the US? How many countries would we plow into the ground in retaliation. It's always different when it happens to us? How many Americans remember the attacks in Madrid? if you're lucky you'll find someone who says "Oh yeah, I kinda remember that." Over hear, and don't take this the wrong way, I'm kinda thankful to see this 9/11 NEVER FORGET stuff die down, but we just don't care. Terrorist attacks happen with greater frequency elsewhere, but when it happens here it's this huge thing. Yes, we suffer terrorist attacks rarely and the fact that crashing planes into buildings is a sensational way to do it, and that it killed many people, but it's a terrorist attack. How often do you see public outpourings of sympathy when people get blown up in Tel Aviv, or Malaysia?
Government sanctioned assassination of foreign (or internal) political figures has never been legal in the US to the best of my understanding but there have been (at times) laws in place to prevent the perpetrators of such acts being prosecuted under the law.Deuceman wrote:
Back in the 70's President Ford signed a law which prevented the U.S. from attempting politcal assassinations. My question is, would it be better to legalize assassination again. Would it help keep us out of wars? I am just wondering what people think out there.
I guarantee if the law were quashed and someone offed, say John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia in Australia (or virtually anywhere bar the US), that that person (if caught) would be prosecuted under local law for murder.
In addition assassination of political figures from one country by another (at the direct instigation/under the control of government) is legitimate cause for a declaration of war (making it unlikely that assassination as a political tool would prevent war) or for UN sanctions and the like to be enacted upon the offending country for that matter. This would apply whether the act occurred in the US or on foreign soil as well, meaning that even US government sanctioned murders in the US would cause nothing but trouble.
Now targeting the military leaders of a country you're at war, now that's a totally different question and a far trickier one, especially in a country such as Iraq (pre-Invasion) where the Head of State was also chief of the armed forces. That'd be a legal mess if you declared war and then topped the boss of a country like that - assassination or legal military maneouvre?
Last edited by RhadamanthysSCC (2006-01-07 00:06:24)