Assassinating the President of the United States, the Debate

[GreysonCarlisle]

Haven been given the go-ahead to start this thread here, I’d like to start a frank and (mostly) open discussion.

Seriously, go back and read that thread, Bone’s statements in particular. We’ll wait.
When is assassinating the president the just and moral choice?

Our current method for deposing a bad president by impeachment and conviction was, as I understand it, implemented as an alternative to assassination. So, if impeachment and conviction of a bad president is not possible because of politics, is it the moral and just choice to kill the president?

We have, built into the framework of our government, a method for regular non-violent transfer of power. Is it always the case that the transfer should be both regular and non-violent?

I don’t know. A president has broad powers to hire and fire and appoint and change policy and could bring misery and death to countless citizens.

The president is elected by the people, so is it ever the good and moral thing–the democratic thing–to subvert that collective will with a bullet?

Again, given the misery and death that a president’s policies can cause, I don’t know. People should have the final say in their government, but an evil, self-serving, or insane government must be stopped, and stopped by whatever means are necessary.

In short, it is against the law to kill any given president. But is it ever the right thing to do?
TLDR version: If you didn’t read both this post and the post I linked to, you’d do well to stay out of this thread.

[snfaulkner]

If he shot at me in in the middle of 5th ave, I’d think I could claim self defense.

[DPRK]

@GreysonCarlisle

The president is elected by the people, so is it ever the good and moral thing–the democratic thing–to subvert that collective will with a bullet?

Again, given the misery and death that a president’s policies can cause, I don’t know. People should have the final say in their government, but an evil, self-serving, or insane government must be stopped, and stopped by whatever means are necessary.

Assassination does not seem very democratic: it’s not like there is ever a public referendum or vote to approve it.

If the entire government is sufficiently corrupt or dysfunctional, then we are talking about the need for revolution/coup/regime change. It happens, but even then it is not obvious there is an urgent need to take out one specific guy. Once the old regime collapses, by definition he or she is no longer in power.

[Slash1972]

Don’t assassinate the President. Vote him out. That’s the point of 4 year elections.

What kind of question is this?

[GreysonCarlisle]

@DPRK

If the entire government is sufficiently corrupt or dysfunctional, then we are talking about the need for revolution/coup/regime change. It happens, but even then it is not obvious there is an urgent need to take out one specific guy. Once the old regime collapses, by definition he or she is no longer in power.

That’s a very good point. I’m not sure how we would go from “the entire government is sufficiently corrupt or dysfunctional” to “the old regime collapses”, though. Hope the voters wise up before the next election cycle, and just muddle through whatever happens between now and then the best we can?

[Tamerlane]

@GreysonCarlisle

Is it always the case that the transfer should be both regular and non-violent?

Yes, IMHO. The slippery slope here can get really slippery.

The president is elected by the people, so is it ever the good and moral thing–the democratic thing–to subvert that collective will with a bullet?

Nope. See above.

People should have the final say in their government, but an evil, self-serving, or insane government must be stopped, and stopped by whatever means are necessary.

The problem here is definitional and in a nation of 300 million+ it is just far too easy to find a handful of cranks that could find ANY conceivable government “evil, self-serving or insane.” Once you go down the road of eliminating “evil” presidents it will never stop, because every president will so qualify to somebody.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

There are lawful means to remove a terrible President of the United States from office; assassination is not and never has been one of them. An assassin in a democracy criminally values his own judgment above that of all his fellow citizens. Presidential assassins have, without exception in our history, been accurately perceived by the vast majority of the nation as villains (sooner or, in Lincoln’s case, not much later). I am no fan of the incumbent, as anyone familiar with my posts knows, but I would not for a moment countenance his assassination.

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Elendil_s_Heir

There are lawful means to remove a terrible President of the United States from office; assassination is not and never has been one of them. An assassin in a democracy criminally values his own judgment above that of all his fellow citizens. Presidential assassins have, without exception in our history, been accurately perceived by the vast majority of the nation as villains (sooner or, in Lincoln’s case, not much later). I am no fan of the incumbent, as anyone familiar with my posts knows, but I would not for a moment countenance his assassination.

Suppose that a sitting president–notice that we are not talking specifically about “the incumbent”–announced that he will initiate a nuclear strike against a nation that hadn’t actually attacked us or our allies. Would you support his assassination by whoever was handy, or would you rely on the chain-of-command to handle it?

That’s the debate–what’s the least thing that would cause you to favor assassination? Or would you never, under any circumstances?

[Slash1972]

@GreysonCarlisle

Suppose that a sitting president–notice that we are not talking specifically about “the incumbent”–announced that he will initiate a nuclear strike against a nation that hadn’t actually attacked us or our allies

This seems similar to initiating an invasion of a country that hadn’t actually attacked us or our allies.

Don’t assassinate the President.

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Tamerlane

The problem here is definitional and in a nation of 300 million+ it is just far too easy to find a handful of cranks that could find ANY conceivable government “evil, self-serving or insane.” Once you go down the road of eliminating “evil” presidents it will never stop, because every president will so qualify to somebody.

Another very good point. I’m not assassinating anybody and you’re not assassinating anybody. But if some random did kill a president that you believed was evil or unhinged, would you quietly applaud or even donate to a defense fund?

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Slash1972

This seems similar to initiating an invasion of a country that hadn’t actually attacked us or our allies.

I think that the use of nukes removes that similarity.

[Trinopus]

If the president truly assumed signally fascist powers, nullified the law, ruled by decree, and committed crimes, such as having the opposition party leadership arrested and “disappeared,” then he might legitimately be considered “outlaw” and fair game for extreme means of removal.

Y’know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot.

Pecadillos such as those committed by Richard Nixon don’t measure up.

Still, the sad bit is that, usually, when the Beloved Leader goes as far as all that, he surrounds himself with a private security apparatus, and is very difficult to get at. So ya can’t win!

[GreysonCarlisle]

@Trinopus

If the president truly assumed signally fascist powers, nullified the law, ruled by decree, and committed crimes, such as having the opposition party leadership arrested and “disappeared,” then he might legitimately be considered “outlaw” and fair game for extreme means of removal.

Y’know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot.

Pecadillos such as those committed by Richard Nixon don’t measure up.

Still, the sad bit is that, usually, when the Beloved Leader goes as far as all that, he surrounds himself with a private security apparatus, and is very difficult to get at. So ya can’t win!

Then let’s up the ante. Is it good and moral to make an end to a president who has begun that process, but who hasn’t yet completed it?

[Slash1972]

@GreysonCarlisle

I think that the use of nukes removes that similarity.

No it doesn’t.

[pool]

What about if you just had a really bad, no fun, awful bad day?

[tomndebb]

@GreysonCarlisle

Then let’s up the ante. Is it good and moral to make an end to a president who has begun that process, but who hasn’t yet completed it?

How far do you intend to “up the ante”? Are you going to keep imagining worse and worse scenarios simply with the intent to get other posters to agree with assassination?

Stick to the premise in the OP and refrain from playing games to get a rise out of other posters.

[ /Moderating ]

[GreysonCarlisle]

@pool

What about if you just had a really bad, no fun, awful bad day?

What if you hate Mondays?

[GreysonCarlisle]

@tomndebb

How far do you intend to “up the ante”? Are you going to keep imagining worse and worse scenarios simply with the intent to get other posters to agree with assassination?

Stick to the premise in the OP and refrain from playing games to get a rise out of other posters.

[ /Moderating ]

I see that you misunderstand my point. Entirely.

Try again.

[Bone]

@GreysonCarlisle

I see that you misunderstand my point. Entirely.

Try again.

Here’s the thing - tom is moderating just as I am. As I described in the ATMB thread linked above - moderators will provide guidance as necessary. Please heed it.

[/moderating]

[tomndebb]

@GreysonCarlisle

I see that you misunderstand my point. Entirely.

Try again.

I am not the one who needs to try harder. If I did not respond to your point, then you need to make your point more clear. I am not particularly excited to be discussing the justification of murder on this site, but I will accept the discussion as a hypothetical as long as it stays very hypothetical.
The post to which I responded was very much a matter of saying, “If you don’t like my OP, how about if I make it sound worse?”