I’m sure that all of you can think of a couple of people in the public eye who make you think “The world would be a better place without him”. I am thinking of dictators like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic for example. Taking the case of the former I personally think that he is virtually 100% to blame for the poverty and hardship which his people are currently enduring. His desire for power and personal gain far outweighs his interests in the welfare of his people and he is still continuing to make their lives a misery.
Put simply would it be morally right to send in a team of SAS or Navy SEALS to take him out? On the one hand there is a chance that his people would be freed from tyranny and have a better quality of life, free from poverty. On the other hand the guy who replaces Saddam might be even worse and make life more miserable for the people. Also do other nations have the right to interfere in the internal policies of another country even when other said nations feel threatened by the continued existance of such a powerful and unpredictable man?
What do you think, would assassination be a moral course of action or not?
A practical aside: who has the right to make this decision? There is no “world government” to sanction such a move; the UN would never consider such a decision without risking utter collapse. Any country that acted unilaterally would risk enormous diplomatic pressures, and perhaps increased terrorist threats.
Besides, if it becomes okay to kill for “a common good”, who’s to say where the line is? It suggests that there are no moral absolutes – if it’ll make people happier, killing is fine.
If that’s your argument than you are really arguing for action against the US. And I don’t think you really want that. So we probably shouldn’t even be arguing about it.
No they do not. Of course that doesn’t prevent them from doing so. Nicaragua felt threatend by the continued existence of Reagan, of course they weren’t stupid enough to try and kill him.
I think we probably would’ve already put the hit on Saddam if we weren’t afraid that his martyrdom might serve as a rallying point for anti-U.S. sentiment.
Impotent, innefectual, and a source for ridicule, he’s worth more to us.
That being said, sure, I think we oughtta kill bad guys, or do a Noriega to 'em, steal their country, play rock music, extradite 'em, and lock 'em up.
Noriega and Saddam Hussain are both examples of what were client states of the US.Marcos is another.
The US will do this from time to time, replacing leaders or supporting the obnoxious on the grounds that it is in the US national interest.
Sometimes they stuff it up, Pinochet is another and he helped out the UK at one time.
The UK is in the process of doing it right now in Sierra Leone.
It used to be done as part of ‘the big picture’ one wonders why it is continued.
Developed nations have played their part in assisting the rise to power of many dictators and there seemed to have been few concerns about interfering with internal affairs then.
When a foreign power decides it is in ‘the greater interest’ to kill a few US citizens or its leaders what would the likely reaction be?
Not so easy when you put the boot on the other foot.
Who’s to say that the next leader, if Milosevic or Hussein (or any other leader) is killed, will be better?
How are you going to claim to know who should be killed and who should not?
We are not the world’s police.
In my opinion, yes Milosevic has done really bad things. Maybe there are other ways to take him out of power. However, I don’t claim to know, and I don’t think anyone else can claim to know, the entire motivation behind what he’s doing. I am NOT trying to say he’s justified or was justified. I’m saying that you don’t know that killing him or anyone else would make any situation better. As I said before, worse people than him exist.
Gomez, you’re missing one point, nothing ever happens in a vacuum.
Slobodan Milosevic didn’t cause the situation in the Balkans, that has been going on for hundreds of not thousands of years. Certainly he’s not helped it, but killing him to end it would be like extinguishing one branch on fire as the whole forest around you burns.
I’m not totally familiar with the situation in Iraq, but I’d be willing to guess it’s the same. Not one person who caused it, but rather a high profile figure that’s equated with it in many peoples minds.
What you’re suggesting sound more like cowboy diplomacy (shoot the people {who, at the moment are considered nasty} and that’ll solve everything).
Our very ability to put a stop to these things makes us paticipants if we do not.
It’s not our business, we’re not the worlds police, it doesn’t have anything to do with us, it’s not our responsibility.
I am sure the occupants of the half full lifeboats leaving the Titanic told themselves the same thing when they didn’t go pack to pick people up out of the water. Now look what happened.
Leonardo DiCaprio died and we had to listen to that stupid song on the radio for a whole year!
I don’t agree with individuals aking the law into their own hands by assuming the common good because their idea of the common good is subjective. For example the guy who assassinated Ghandi apparently thought that his actions would benefit the majority but he was mistaken.
However if a government was to undertake an assassination it would probably require more input from advisors and suchlike. The decision wouldn’t be taken lightly and so a much more objective view of the common would probably be obtained. Also people in charge of making the decision would more than likely have a lot of information about the socio economic and political climate so they would be in a better position to predict the consequences of any assassination attempt.
Also, Oldscratch, yuou said:
I don’t quite follow. Do you mean that I think their poverty is caused by the economic sanctions which have been put up, primarily by the U.S. and the U.K.? If so then the answer is yes, I do believe that is the main cause of their poverty, however I’m not arguing against the U.S. because I think that these sanctions were put in because of Saddam’s actions and they were necessary to force him to scale down his rearmourment program. If that wasn’t what you meant then please let me know.
MY GOD MAN!! THE FORMATING! THE FORMATING!! MY EYES!! MY EYES!!!
Well two things. One, the Us put him in there in the first place. Iraq used to be quite modern. Then they punish the people when THEIR bully goes and bullies someone else. Who do you think should be blamed? Without the US saddam wouldn’t have had the power to do what he did. Also the blame couold be put for the sanctions against people.
Example. I’m a 15 year old child, my father goes and hits a cop, you subject me to daily beating because of this. Who will get blamed for the violence against me? My dad, or the person attacking me because of what he did.
Also Scylla, I skimmed your post, not really reading it, until I got to this. “Leonardo DiCaprio died”. You do not know what joy you brought me.
Then I went back and realised you were just talking about Titanic.
What makes you think things will be any better if those hard things are done?
In that case you’re talking about something pretty different, IMO. There’s a bit of a difference between going back for people stuck in the water (which is risky anyway) and attempting the assassination of the leader of a country.
"Leonardo DiCaprio died and we had to listen to that stupid song on the radio for a whole year!"
No, we had to listen to that song because it reminded half the male population who saw the movie of Kate Winslett nude. That is an even worse crime;)
Oldscratch, in your example of your father hitting a cop, why can’t you go somewhere else? In addition, that’s a snapshot in life. Can you honestly expect people to make an educated decision based on just what you’ve given us?
Up to a point you are right but unfortunately our governments are the ones who are very much partners in crime for much of what has happened.
It is impossible for citizens of such nations to trust the altruistic nature of our interventions based on the experiences they have already endured.
Besides which if it were open season on world leaders such as Saddam Hussain then it would be open season on all, and politicians have a very strong sense of self-preservation.
I can’t imagine many of the current crop of leaders in the developed world laying their lives on the line because of their beliefs.
There are many who live who deserve death. There are also many who have died who deserve life. If you cannot right one situation, do not be so hasty to address the other. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
The general consensus seems to be that it’s morally wrong for this country to assassinate foreign leaders. Is it also morally wrong for this country to go to war against other nations? Most people don’t seem to regard the attempt to assassinate Hitler as having been criminal. I believe the only attempts on Hitler’s life were carried out by dissident Germans, but would it have been wrong if the OSS had sent a team of hit men after Hitler?
Why is it considered absolutely unacceptable to assassinate a foreign leader, but considered acceptable by most people under at least some circumstances to wage war against an entire country, when in fact it may be only one person or small group of people who we really have a quarrel with? In fact, it’s almost routine for this country to say “We have no quarrel with the Ruritanian people, it’s merely the wicked, depraved dictator of Ruritania whom we oppose”–yet, even if we’re waging all out war, or at least engaging in open military activities (bombing and missile raids), if we appear to be “targeting” the wicked Ruritanian Maximum Leader, say by bombing his personal palace, many people seem to feel some line has been crossed.
One problem I do see with assassination as a tool of foreign policy is that it can be carried out covertly, without any public debate or democratic approval, whereas all-out war usually requires at least some semblance of public justification. So, perhaps assassination should only be permitted of the leaders of countries we are openly at war with. Of course, these days, for anything short of the Gulf War American presidents seem to feel no compunction about going ahead and letting fly with the bombs, and letting the rest of us find out about it after the fact on CNN–but at least we do find out about it, and the president then has to give some kind of speech to justify his actions. (“My fellow Americans, last night American forces launched air and cruise missile strikes against targets in southern Iraq because–uh, well, to be honest–you’re all gonna get a chuckle out of this one–I was looking at my calendar, and it said ‘Bomb Iraq–next Tues.’–and it was only afterwards that I realized I’d been looking at last year’s calendar.”) With some “hit” in the dead of night, our government might never have to own up to its responsibility at all. At any rate, by the rather lax post-WWII standards of American war-waging, we arguably have been in a state of open conflict with both Serbia and Iraq–certainly with Iraq. I’d say, if it was moral to send B-52’s to drop bombs on five hundred thousand Shi’ite farmboys for several weeks, it would have been moral to drop one bomb on whatever building Saddam happened to be sitting in at that particular moment–or to send some guy with a high powered rifle and shoot the bastard.
