Assassination

In its most common use, assassination has come to mean the killing of an important person. An assassin — one who carries out the assassination — is usually motivated by ideological or political reasons. Other motivations may be money in the case of a hitman; opposition to a person's beliefs or belief systems in the case of a fanatic; orders from a government that are often carried about by a subversive agent such as a spy; or loyalty to a competing leader or group.

Moral issues

Moral equivalence is also important when examining the use of assassination. Opponents of what one American officer called "trial, judgment and execution by intelligence" argue that no state deliberately training, hiring, sanctioning or harbouring an assassin could hope to justify it in such a way that would satisfy its allies and neighbours, much less the affected countries (even though many might use the tactic themselves). In democracies this issue is particularly crucial; much of the impetus for engaging in military action in such states is the motivation of perceived righteousness fighting a brutal enemy, an opinion that is undermined if one's nation is actively and openly engaged in killings outside the laws of war. Many would argue that the negative morale effects alone would outweigh any possible benefits. Therefore a severe injustice is done if a self-proclaimed democracy calls another authority names and mount assassination plots.

Related Topics:
Moral equivalence - Democracies

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Supporters of assassination as a policy reply, however, that often the killing of one problematic figure can spare countless lives and years — or even decades — of warfare. An example often cited is the question of what might have come to pass had Adolf Hitler been assassinated in 1935. Countless millions, the argument goes, would have been spared had only such intervention been taken. However, it could be argued that Adolf Hitler was just one man in a Nazi Party of hundreds, and his successor may be just as brutal (not to mention vengeful). Furthermore, it can be argued that this logic would not only justify killing Hitler in 1935 but also killing Adolf in his crib as an innocent infant.

Related Topics:
Hitler - 1935

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, the widespread attention paid to deeds by those branded as "dictators" such as Saddam Hussein and Idi Amin is seen by many as another persuasive argument towards the necessity of eliminating such individuals. The increasing spectre of terrorism, too, often leads many to question why, if it is "kill or be killed", there should be any delay in taking such action (an opponent would likely be quick to reply, however, that such an action alone leads to the loss of moral equivalence, proving their above argument, although a likely counter could be that moral equivalence is of little use to either a terrorist or one of their dead victims).

Related Topics:
Dictators - Saddam Hussein - Idi Amin - Terrorism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Others point out that this point of view may create a dangerous slippery slope, to a point where assassination may be advocated, not to save millions of lives, but in order to merely accomplish a self-interested political or economic goal. For an example of this sort of possible over-reaching, see Pat Robertson's comments concerning his advocacy of the assassination of Venezuela president Hugo Chávez.

Related Topics:
Slippery slope - Pat Robertson - Venezuela - Hugo Chávez

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~