The politics of assassination

[wiggin]

Whew. With that thread title, I have no doubt that this conversation might get ugly. But work with me here. To start with, some simple ground rules:

1) No discussion of the hows and whys of the various conflicts I'm going to talk about. I don't care what side you're on, I merely want to discuss the topic at hand.

2) Try to support any factual claims with sources. Within reason; you don't need to prove to me the world is round. Similarly, if you are relying on a significant school of thought in your arguments, it might be nice to attribute it.

3) Play nice. ;)

aaaaaaand, to the point:

As I'm sure most of you have heard, the United States assassinated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5059494.stm) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the last day or so in an air strike on the house in which he was staying. Zarqawi was the declared leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the supposed architect of many of the most audacious attacks on American, British, and Iraqi government forces in the last three years.

Interestingly, another terrorist leader was killed today, but by the Israelis. Hours after Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz ordered stepped up 'targeted killing' operations (a euphemism for assassinating high terrorist leaders, predominantly in the Gaza Strip) in response to increased shelling of Israeli towns bordering the Strip, the Israeli Air Force launched a strike (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724811.html) against a training camp, killing Jamal Abu Samhadana and three other terrorists.

Samhadana was the leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, the umbrella terrorist organization responsible for most of the rocket fire at Israeli towns. He's notable for two other things: (1) In 2003, he planned a bombing attack on a US Embassy convoy in the Gaza Strip that killed three Americans - one of the few Palestinian attacks against US government targets. (2) This past year, he has been at the center of a controversy surrounding the new Hamas government, when he was appointed the head of a newly formed PA security force in the Gaza Strip, pissing off both the Israelis (who wanted his head) and Fatah, the opposing party (who wanted control of the security forces).

This brings me to the crux of the thread: Are these assassinations reasonable reactions to terrorism? In the past, Israeli assassination campaigns (stretching back to nearly the beginning of the state, but carried out by the military since the beginning of the second intafada) have been met with world condemnation, typically called 'extrajudicial killings' that violate international law. Additional criticism has reasonably been levelled that the collateral damage from such air strikes is far too high, and that Israel must find other means to neutralize terrorist threats. Interestingly, they have tried to stick to purely terrorist, and not political targets (though with the election of the Hamas-led PA government, the distinction has grown somewhat blurred).

The US has also generally refrained from assassination. Although the CIA used assassination as a significant part of its arsenal in a number of conflicts (including the Vietnam War), it has not been an official part of US policy since the Ford administration. That was codified by Reagan in 1981 with Executive Order 12333 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html), which among other things, explicitly prohibited assassination by the US government. The rule has been bent or broken a number of times, but it has been ouright ignored since the late Clinton presidency (notably, in air strikes against bin Laden in the wake of the embassy bombings in 1998), and by multiple US strikes in the Iraqi, Afghani, and terrorism wars. Targets have included terrorist leaders and operatives, political/military figures (e.g. Saddam Hussein, his sons, Taliban leaders, etc.), etc.

Interestingly, the US has not revoked the executive order, merely extensively reinterpreted it to not apply to terrorists (with a rather broad definition thereof), even up the point of killing American citizens without trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Hijazi). Similarly, the US has continued to say that Israeli assassination policies are unacceptable, though they have not given a concrete reason for this apparent double standard.

So here's the question: Is assassination ever a reasonable tactic? Against whom, and under what circumstances? Can it be defended on ethical grounds, or must it be argued on pragmatic grounds? Should assassinations (if justified) be also used for political purposes - ie, to strengthen an unpopular government? If not, does this invalidate justification for such actions? Is there an acceptable level of collateral damage for such operations?

And one last case to round out things: Near the beginning of the second intafada (2001), Rechavam Ze'evi, a right-wing Israeli politician, was assassinated by the PFLP, a small Palestinian terrorist group. Ze'evi had advocated some extremely hard-line policies toward the Palestinians (though these had not gathered a significant following in the Knesset) including forced transfer of Arabs beyond the post-1967 borders. The assassination was carried out by a non-state entity on a non-military target... but does that make it any less acceptable? Ze'evi advocated policies that would seriously harm the Palestinians, no?

I have some thoughts for answers, but I'm intrigued to see what you have to say.

Oh, one last point: don't bother waving international law in my face. It's pretty much ignored, so it cannot be used as part of an argument on the ethical uses of assassination. I'd like to see a discussion on the fundamental issues.

Ender

[Anita Blake]

gah... i'd love to post something on this! i'm supposed to be working right now, but i'm pausing, so a few words on a few of the point you've made.

I don't know that assassination can be justified ethically, but pragmatically, absolutely. There are individuals who have political clout tied to the force of their personality, whose elimination can pave the way for opponents. Sometimes it's the best way to rid yourself of someone causing damange to your cause.

On the other hand, it can always backfire, turning the assassinated eprson into a martyr for his cause, strengthening the resolve of those who were previously not determined to battle your will.

It's an odd scenario, especially when, in the particular case of the US (but any "free" nation also), a nation advocating political freedom, religious freedom, and the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would sanction the death of someone for what basically amounts to political dissent (dissenting from US politics, as well as their own local politics, albeit in a violent and unnacceptable manner). Is it better for the US to follow their stated ethics and face a lengthy pursuit, arrest, and expensive trial of an opponent outside of their jurisdiction, or to simply rid themselves of an opponent quickly, tidily, and efficiently. Is it better, in essense, to be a gentleman or a brute? I'd say historically some countries have chosen one route, some another. Is one way more right, or simply more effective? It depends on the situation, ultimately.

Another interesting question to ponder is this: in cases of assassination, one man pulls the trigger, but it's at the order of another. Who is morally culpable for the murder, the executioner or the head of state who employs him? Are they both equally culpable?

I'm going to go off a little and say that in the situation of the "war on terrorism", i'd say the entirely wrong tactics are being used. Using fire to fight fire is more damaging and less effective than using water. it's a war of ideology - that's the weapon that should be used. appealing to people's hearts, minds, and ethics rather than killing them is a more effective way to fight violence against civilians for political means. Offering assistance instead of violence would be a better use of war funds.

which I suppose makes my stance on assassination, against it. Except I'm not, really. Sometimes, heads of the opposition in a violent conflict need to be removed. You just need to beware and be prepared for a new head to spring up overnight.

[Buck]

Another interesting question to ponder is this: in cases of assassination, one man pulls the trigger, but it's at the order of another. Who is morally culpable for the murder, the executioner or the head of state who employs him? Are they both equally culpable?



I would say that the man tha pulls the trigger is a soldier just doing his duty. Soldiers are trained to take orders. They dont have all the cards in front of them so expecting them to make a proper judgement call is a bit hard to swallow. All responsibility, regardless, should be weighted onto the person who gave the order.


Wiggin, where I stand on assasinations is a bit sticky. If it as open warfare between two nations, in all honesty there are no rules. Only what you are willing to do or not do to win. Looking at things like the Geneva Conventions, you'll note that assasinations aren't mentioned. The Conventions deal primarily with humane treatment of combatants in warfare. I am not a fan of warfare at all, but when people come a knockin', I am not about to recommend to people to go the Way of the Leaf.

Assanination is a dirty way of fighting. But that is the way things are done in war. Wars are not supposed to be ethical or logical. You don't see proper battles happening any more. "Hey you nation I don't like that much, let us both meet in that field on the morrow at noon, what say you?". Guirilla tactics and pre-emptive strikes are the name of the game now. Winner writes the history books, right?

So to some up, I do not approve of warfare but I understand that under circumstandes it is necessary. I do not approve of assasinations either, but under circumstances it may be necessary. Of course it is all subjective. Both sides of a conflict would be ok with assasinating someone on the other side, but the recieving end of it would comdemn it as a horrid act for political propaganda.

Out of war assasinations however I am not a fan of. There I do draw a solid line and think there is a clear difference. If two nations are a bit hostile toward each other but not at 'war' then I do not approve of the use of this tactic. I would consider it and act of war. Same as pre-emptive strikes and thie like.

edit - I forgot an important issue (stupid me)

Martyrs. No one wants to make one. It could end up doing as much if not more damage than leaving said person alive. Assasinators would be stupid to make one.

Casualties. This is not clearly only an issure with assasinations, but it should get mentioned. I think that taking out innocent civilians in the process makes assasinations unacceptable in my view. As an example, taking out a target's baby girl in the process is a big no-no.

[wiggin]

Some quick notes on international law before I post a real answer:

The situation is much more complex. Assassination is sometimes allowed in an armed conflict between nations, but modern wars rarely fit the conditions needed by old-style international law treaties. Terrorist groups are not state actors, and there are questions as to their status under human rights law. Essentially, you can interpret it any way you want, depending on what you believe. So I don't believe that international law should inform this decision. There are any number of analyses about this... one such ones can be found here (http://library.law.pace.edu/blogs/jib/2005/12/) (scroll down a bit to the big article).

It boils down to... the Geneva Conventions (and stuff like the UNDHR or whatever it's called) can be bent any way we choose.

Ender

[Buck]

The problem is not so much bent, things like the Geneva Convention are not enforceable. The UN's goal is to keep the peace not to police nations. If it tried to do the latter it would fall apart.


Terrorist groups are not state actors, and there are questions as to their status under human rights law.

I didn't got there on purpose. If you must know my view point on this, well I will go there. I think the "War on Terrar" is an utter joke. It will fail the same way the "War on Drugs" has. It is just a political stunt.

I am for declaring war on a specific group of people, but the target needs to be clearly defined. Declare war on Al Queda. List the suspects you are at war with, then work with nations they are presumed to be in and aprehending them with help of those nations. If those nations dont want to play nice and the threat is that bad, then declare war on that country. It is all very subjective though. If a country says no, are they a bad guy in this or an innocent bystander. ~shrugs~ This is the part that gets sticky. Each case should be treated seperately if you ask me.

I much prefer these bastards be caught and tried in a court of law than being blown to bits from range and taking out innocents in the process as well. No martyrs and no unnecessary casualties.

Coming up with generic ethics for war is a waste of time anyway.

[Amos]

I'm not sure I have any concrete opinion of my own. I'm inclined to disapprove, since if I approve of assassination then I have no grounds for protesting against being assassinated. On the other hand, I visited Robert Anton Wilson's website (http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml) just now, and saw this:


Just as a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, even a Christian Fundamentalist gets a savvy notion every now and then. I think rev. Robertson had a good idea when he suggested replacing war with assassination in one case, on economic grounds. He merely didn’t carry the concept far enough.

I suggest that we should abolish war utterly and replace it entirely with selective assassination. Think about the savings this would mean, in this age when even our “little” wars cost billions of dollars a year, and rememer the cogent observation of the late Senator Dirkson: “A billion here, a billion there – pretty soon you’re talking about REAL Money.” We’ve already gotten our national debt so high that our posterity “unto the seventh generation” will never pay it off; do we really need to enslave the whole future to the international bankers?

On the moral side, killing a few dozen foreigners a year instead of a few hundred thousand should seem less messy, to say the least of it, especially when you consider the collatarel damage to our own side. How much blood and death do we need?

Reversing a sentimental error of the ‘60s, the new anti-war slogan should be MAKE ASSASSINATIONS, NOT WARS.

And, best of all, if this idea catches on internationally we can expect at least 50 contracts on George Bush the first week.

[wiggin]

I've been very busy/away for some weeks... Here's some thoughts for this thread. I'll get to my others soon.


On the other hand, it can always backfire, turning the assassinated eprson into a martyr for his cause, strengthening the resolve of those who were previously not determined to battle your will.
Granted. Martyrs are an issue... but in the current chaps who are generally being assassinated, there are already no shortage of martyrs. These people make suicide a weapon. Making a few extra martyrs while crippling the operational leadership seems to be a fair trade-off... on purely pragmatic grounds.


Is it better, in essense, to be a gentleman or a brute? I'd say historically some countries have chosen one route, some another. Is one way more right, or simply more effective? It depends on the situation, ultimately.
This reminds me of a discussion Terry Pratchett had on the 'Noble Art of Fisticuffs' by the Maquis of Fantailler (uh... read Discworld if you don't know what I'm talking about). Perhaps enforcement of law and peace should not concern itself with being gentlemanly, but with protecting the lives and safety of people everywhere. More a devil's advocate point than anything else, but sometimes the noble associations we all have with the word 'gentlemen' in our minds can be misleading. Sometimes 'gentlemen' have done all of the wrong things for the highest of ideals.


Another interesting question to ponder is this: in cases of assassination, one man pulls the trigger, but it's at the order of another. Who is morally culpable for the murder, the executioner or the head of state who employs him? Are they both equally culpable?
Is a soldier in an army personally responsible for the deaths he causes? This has been debated endlessly in ethics classes, and is essentially a waste of time. It boils down to this: every individual is responsible for their actions. Some would argue that government is just a loose grouping of like-minded individuals who are all responsible for their own actions. Others would say that the State is an entity of itself, and also shares responsibility with those individuals who execute the State's will.

Buck - I disagree with your stance on this situation. Soldiers have not only the right but the responsibility to refuse an illegal/immoral order. (Interestingly, this is most often expressed in the Israeli army, where it is an enshrined right of every soldier to refuse an order. Of course, they will have to pay for this, generally with administrative punishment or imprisonment. But it is a respected decision... and if the soldier's claim is proven by an Israeli court, they will be exonerated. This, of course, is entirely different from refusing an order during combat, which is one of Israel's two capital offenses.)


I'm going to go off a little and say that in the situation of the "war on terrorism", i'd say the entirely wrong tactics are being used. Using fire to fight fire is more damaging and less effective than using water. it's a war of ideology - that's the weapon that should be used. appealing to people's hearts, minds, and ethics rather than killing them is a more effective way to fight violence against civilians for political means. Offering assistance instead of violence would be a better use of war funds.
Perhaps, Anita... but the people who are running terrorist organizations today are far beyond our ability to reason with. Perhaps the next generation can be successfully coopted into a more peaceful means of expressing disagreement, but the current chaps will not be swayed with words. No one thinks that assassination will provide a long-term peace, but it can be proven to provide short term security.


Wiggin, where I stand on assasinations is a bit sticky. If it as open warfare between two nations, in all honesty there are no rules. Only what you are willing to do or not do to win. Looking at things like the Geneva Conventions, you'll note that assasinations aren't mentioned. The Conventions deal primarily with humane treatment of combatants in warfare. I am not a fan of warfare at all, but when people come a knockin', I am not about to recommend to people to go the Way of the Leaf.
...
Out of war assasinations however I am not a fan of. There I do draw a solid line and think there is a clear difference. If two nations are a bit hostile toward each other but not at 'war' then I do not approve of the use of this tactic. I would consider it and act of war. Same as pre-emptive strikes and thie like.
But you must define a state of warfare, Buck! We aren't talking about state actors with which one can be at war with, by the technical definition. Can the US be at war with Iraqi insurgents? The Iraqi government is certainly all behind US troop actions, no? Can Israel be at war with Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade?

I would argue that the question of assassination becomes much more prevalent in such non-classical forms of warfare. The Executive Order I mentioned was dealing more with trying to take out the political leaders of a country with which we are at war. (For example, if the US had tried to take out North Korean gov't officials back in the 50s, or as they did kill various Viet Cong leaders). That is a fairly uncommon practice in classical conflicts, as it looks extremely bad, and will rarely destroy a country's willingness to fight.

The real incentive to use assassination occurs in these pseudo-wars with nonstate entities. They don't have armies or much infrastructure we can attack... They are flexible, heirarchical organizations composed of people. The weak link in these organizations is not their resources or weapons, but their reliance on a small group of highly influential leaders. If these leaders can be removed, the ability of the organization to effectively fight is sharply curtailed.

Thus, answering the question of assassination as it applies to official warfare is besides the point. (Not that you didn't have some cogent arguments.)


Casualties. This is not clearly only an issure with assasinations, but it should get mentioned. I think that taking out innocent civilians in the process makes assasinations unacceptable in my view. As an example, taking out a target's baby girl in the process is a big no-no.
Okay, but here's a very common situation: Your targets are constantly on the move inside large, hostile urban areas. They are surrounded by bodyguards, and travel anonymously in cars. You get immediate information about where one of the leaders is, but he's in the middle of the aforementioned hostile city. You can either attack his car with as limited and precision munitions as possible (risking collateral damage, but not intentionally targeting the civilians nearby), or you can let him past in the vain hope that someday he will break tradecraft and you can bag him in a more isolated location. What do you do?

*shrugs* It's quite a problem.

I've got some more discussion for later, but it's late and I'm tired. ;)

Ender

[Anita Blake]

Perhaps, Anita... but the people who are running terrorist organizations today are far beyond our ability to reason with. Perhaps the next generation can be successfully coopted into a more peaceful means of expressing disagreement, but the current chaps will not be swayed with words. No one thinks that assassination will provide a long-term peace, but it can be proven to provide short term security.



oh absolutely. it seems that once people buy into the cause, there's no backing out. I was talking about ensuring that people who are not currently a member of a terrorist organization are given no reason to join up. but the way things are today, it seems that the western world is shoving people by the truckload into the welcoming arms of terrorists. We're not doing anything to dispel the propoganda against us, instead, we're only proving that we are, in fact, godless people who want to destroy the islamic way of life. If we could act in a manner contrary to the way that terrorist trainers tell their potential recruits, if we could convince middle eastern nations that we do in fact want them to have a quality of life comparable to our own without pushing our belief system on them, then maybe, potential recruits would turn away from violently acting out against us. obviously it's more complex than just being noble, but it's definitely a step.