In the U.S. it is aganist the law to target a head of state just for being a head of state. Lucky thing for Bush at he kept missing Sadam. When we bombed his palace it was ok (we where going after comand and control), but when we bombed a restrant he had just left it was atempted murder.
Nobody ever call Bush on his real crimes.
Actually, that’s been an unofficial rule of international relations for thousands of years - namely, that kings don’t kill other kings. I guess they don’t want to set a precident.
According to the style guide for the Associated Press, ‘assasination’ should only be used if it involves the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack.
My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary backs this up, defining the term ‘assasinate’ as 'To murder (a prominent person.)
So, according to these references, an assasination is murder, but a murder is not necessarily an assasination. A soldier under orders would be, I would think, an exception as Siam Sam has pointed out.
I’m not sure if this is what you’re thinking of, but there’s a common misperception – at least, I’ve read it was a misperception – that political assassinations of foreign dignitaries are illegal for Americans like, say, the CIA. In reality, it’s just a policy sarted by Reagan but never carrying the force of law.
I’ve not gone and looked this up again, so please someone correct me if that’s not true.
again, making use of legal definitions. Any intentional killing is murder by legal definitions. But the original question was semantic. So assuming we aren’t discussing a murder case, but rather are discussing how he is irked by use of assassinated vs. use of murder in every day discussion, murder ALWAYS has negative connotations, and so the “murder” of osama bin laden would be a funny phrase indeed (outside a courtroom or inane straight dope argument), where the murder of Pope Benedict would not. Both would probably be assassinations (unless it was some crime of passion or attempted mugging- unlikely scenarios).
The real superclass you’re looking for is Kill.
Kill includes murder, assassinate, manslaughter, “neutralize” (since one soldier killing another is not murder, in fact i don’t even think legal definitions would consider it such).
murder includes, in normal usage, “bad” intentional killing.
neutralize (and i’m sure you can think of more words for this) is strategic killing. morality has nothing to do with it.
assassination seems to be used in two circumstances. Either with a prominent figure, for who they are, or with any figure, for what they have done or will do of public import (that is, not killing an old lady for not giving me her watch-- but yes killing an old lady for plotting a coup d’etat).
I generally agree that assassination infers some political/ideological motive beyond the garden variety murder.
I happen to consider Lennon’s killing an assassination, based on the evidence indicating that the government of the time sought to neutralize him and that Chapman was a tool towards that end. Regardless of the validity of my conclusions, it speaks to why people use the term.
But ultimately, he was murdered, be it an “assassination” or just some “lone nut”, right?
OP here, just checking in to say Thanks for all the replies- the only difference seems to be the motivation behind the act, which is what I suspected all along.
For a historical perspective, the OED’s etymology and definitions for “assassin” give a pretty good explanation:
The word “assassin” most likely derives from Arabic “hashshashin”. The meaning of the word still retains the specific connotations of killing a leader or important figure by sudden, covert measures because that’s what the Hashshashin did.
Of course, these guys are kind of like the Templars – it’s hard to separate the historical facts from the loony conspiracy stuff. But inasmuch as the perception of the Hashshashin (regardless of historical fact) has a direct bearing on the connotation of the word “assassin”, even the conspiracy stuff is relevant, I suppose.