A conservative columnist (I’m afraid I don’t have the cite in front of me; I’ll attempt to dig it up later) asserted that Bush should repeal the law (instituted by Carter, whom the columnist sharply mocked) making US-sanctioned assassinations illegal.
I know this probably isn’t the most objective time to be asking, but since the columnist has already tossed it out, what do you think, Dopers? Would it do more harm than good to repeal?
What’s to say that the U.S. hasn’t been doing assasinations? Obviously they would have to choose smaller targets that they would like, but all they have to do use a third party. They can claim that the U.S. had nothing to do with the death since it was that OTHER country. I personally think the policy should be revoked (is it a law or just a Presidential Order?) but caution must be used. Take out a couple big thorns like Saddam Hussein and then keep a low profile. They should only use assasination if capture and imprisonment is unlikely (such as the enemy is protected by an enemy state, is too well guarded, etc.).
I don’t think a government should ever do something to a citizen of another country it can’t do to its own people (ie. summarily execute someone). In fact, because we’d be invading foreign soil to do it we should be even more reluctant, unless we’ve declared war on the country involved.
Otherwise what restraints would their be on picking off anyone at all abroad? What restraints would there be on other countries picking off americans who annoy them?
I think that this idea that it’s somehow moral to kill thousands of innocent people trying to go after one man in an airstrike, or send thousands of 18 year-old kids to their maker in a conventional battle of uncertain outcome, but it’s somehow immoral to have one well placed sniper put a bullet in his head, to be an absurdity of the highest order.
The U.S. should absolutely conduct assassinations of terrorist leaders, either directly or by proxy. Such an assassination is far, far preferable to an airstrike or missile attack which injures a single bystander.
I don’t think morality is being debated here. What is being debated is reality. Assassination is a bad thing to introduce into International politics. The taboo against assassinations ensures that leaders, with whom diplomatic relationships can be persued, remain in place, instead of chaos and anarchy. It keeps global stability and allows us to execute the complex diplomatic relationships that hold the globe together. It also ensures that when something goes awry, there is global response and accountability.
Exactly. The issue is not morality but lawful versus lawless behavior internationally. Wars may be immoral but they are (or can be) pursued lawfully by national and international standards.
A country that is willing to engage in assassinations abroad acts as a renegade, lawless nation with all the implications you spelled out.