Should assassination be a legitimate foreign policy tool? (3 Viewers)

[enoilgam]

im sorry but terrorist organisations cannot 'wage war' on states in any legally meaningful sense, and nor can the US 'wage war' on terrorist organisations (in before war on terror, that is a political slogan not a declaration of war). the principality of hutt river declared war on australia in 1977. would we have been justified in assassinating Prince Leonard?

Unlike the Principality of Hutt River, Osama and his minions used violence and posed a severe risk to global security. If the Principality of Hutt River decided to act out with aggression towards the government, the Police would have retaliated with violence.

The situation is similar to self defence with this whole argument as to foreign assassinations. The main question though, as in all self defence cases, is immediacy of the threat. The justice system has been spliting hairs on this issue for centuries, so I can see where your coming from funkshen.

 

[funkshen]

Unlike the Principality of Hutt River, Osama and his minions used violence and posed a severe risk to global security. If the Principality of Hutt River decided to act out with aggression towards the government, the Police would have retaliated with violence.

The situation is similar to self defence with this whole argument as to foreign assassinations. The main question though, as in all self defence cases, is immediacy of the threat. The justice system has been spliting hairs on this issue for centuries, so I can see where your coming from funkshen.

osama wasn't a severe risk to global security. he has been irrelevant in al-Qaeda since 2001. the man had, perhaps, committed a crime. in the developed world, we give criminals the opportunity to stand trial. all efforts are made to make sure that they have the opportunity to do so, even if they violent resist arrest. we gave the nazis a nice trial.

osama bin laden did not resist arrest and was not an immediate threat
the US was not acting in 'self defence'
and neither of these things have any real bearing on why assassinations were (or once were) thrown out from the foreign policy toolbox in the first place

 

[boris]

norway should execute brievik on the spot
he is a risk to global security

allowing him a trial is greatly inflaming the movement of christian extremism over a greater period of time

 

[boris]

entities who are a risk to 'global security' (and should be assassinated)

- the usa
- north korea
- israel

 

[funkshen]

entities who are a risk to 'global security' (and should be assassinated)

- the usa
- north korea
- israel

add kony to the list. menace to public order. inflaming graffiti extremists everywhere

 

[enoilgam]

Like I said before, each situation needs to be approached individually. My point is that assassination is a valid foreign policy tool if used in the appropriate situation. This whole "appropriate situation" is an extremely subjective standard - see how greatly we disagree on the Osama issue. Put it this way, I wouldnt want to be the head of government in a situation where the assassination of a foreign figure is being considered.

 

[boris]

assassinate hitler

 

[boris]

Like I said before, each situation needs to be approached individually. My point is that assassination is a valid foreign policy tool if used in the appropriate situation. This whole "appropriate situation" is an extremely subjective standard - see how greatly we disagree on the Osama issue. Put it this way, I wouldnt want to be the head of government in a situation where the assassination of a foreign figure is being considered.

thats like saying rape is a valid tool when used in the appropriate situation
i dont know what that situation might be but it is definitely an option

 

[boris]

genocide

appropriate situation

 

[funkshen]

Like I said before, each situation needs to be approached individually. My point is that assassination is a valid foreign policy tool if used in the appropriate situation. This whole "appropriate situation" is an extremely subjective standard - see how greatly we disagree on the Osama issue. Put it this way, I wouldnt want to be the head of government in a situation where the assassination of a foreign figure is being considered.

we should just do away with all pretense of the rule of law, then. the legality of any situation is arbitrarily decided upon, on a case by case status, by our benevolent state overlords.

also you are a confirmed coward. i would bask in the glory of being a head of government responsible for ordering assassinations

 

[boris]

if the germanic tribes had been wiped out via genocide by the romans there would have been no hitler

 

[boris]

gotta hand it to hitler though
he did kill hitler after all

 

[enoilgam]

we should just do away with all pretense of the rule of law, then. the legality of any situation is arbitrarily decided upon, on a case by case status, by our benevolent state overlords.

also you are a confirmed coward. i would bask in the glory of being a head of government responsible for ordering assassinations

I said I wouldnt want to be in that position - if I was I would make a decision and stick to it. I can definitely see where you guys are coming from - its just a tough issue to make a decision on.

 

[boris]

I said I wouldnt want to be in that position - if I was I would make a decision and stick to it. I can definitely see where you guys are coming from - its just a tough issue to make a decision on.

lol no it isnt

it probably couldnt be any more clear cut

 

[funkshen]

lol no it isnt

it probably couldnt be any more clear cut

i would automate it

acquire target
initiate assassination protocol
if target_skincolour = white STOP
if target_skincolour = black, brown, yellow GO

 

[soloooooo]

norway should execute brievik on the spot
he is a risk to global security

allowing him a trial is greatly inflaming the movement of christian extremism over a greater period of time

Well they have to give him a trial, although after that he should be executed (does Norway have the death penalty though?). I don't think anyone would be too concerned if prison transport guards had to shoot him 'to stop him escaping' etc.

 

[soloooooo]

entities who are a risk to 'global security' (and should be assassinated)

- the usa
- north korea
- israel

North Korea is a risk. The US and Israel are not though (they are also on our side).

 

[mirakon]

Just because they are not a risk to us, doesn't mean they aren't a risk to others solo

 

[soloooooo]

They may be a risk to others, although those 'others' are also a risk to us. It is preferential for us to be allies with Israel than for us to be allies with Iran etc.

 

[kaz1]

North Korea is a risk. The US and Israel are not though (they are also on our side).

Not when Christine Milne becomes PM.