| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Targeted Assassination?; Right or wrong? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 8 2006, 01:56 PM (264 Views) | |
| Post #1 Feb 8 2006, 01:56 PM | Son N Law |
|
Recent discussions on other forums, as well as news and editorial pieces, have had me pondering this question a lot as of late. I'll come right of the gate and admit that my own stance on the issue isn't 100% airtight just yet, but having mulled it over quite a bit, I feel like I'm pretty close to putting this internal struggle to rest. Just thought I would see what you guys and gals think. It's hard to cover the issue without bringing Israel into the discussion, given that most of the flap is probably stemming from the film Munich. The Bush Administration has also taken a lot of heat for what is described as targeted assassination in the war against al-Qaeda. If we could, for the sake of discussion, let's ignore laws and treaties when debating the matter. Such laws and treaties were made by men who didn't want to be assassinated themselves. If you'd like to reference an international law that you feel sums up your possition well, feel free -- just know that it isn't going to help me solidify my moral stance on the matter. First off, let me get one thing out of the way off the bat: although I mentioned the Bush Administration's tactics against al-Qaeda above, I have yet to hear an argument against such tactics that amounts to anything more than a non sequitur. Anyone who has objections to the way we're fighting al-Qaeda needs to propose a better solution, in my opinion. It's a battle we have to fight, in my opinion, and I see no other way of fighting it. I totally support the War on Terror and the tactics being used to fight it (as long as my telephone conversations aren't being recorded). That aside, I'm of the opinion that, laws or no laws, targeted assassination is a morally tenable tactic and, in my opinion, could and should be used as an alternative to war when it's feasible to do so. It seems to me that if we can make the world a better place by removing a person from power by eradicating him cleanly, rather than plowing through his country, knowing that we'll kill innocents in the process, only to arrest him and bring him to trial, we should do so. And yes, I know it probably sounds like I'm talking about Iraq here (a war to which I'm openly opposed, and a war that, in my opinion, is counterproductive in terms of the War on Terror), but that's not necessarily what's going on in my head. I'm speaking generally. In a recent statement, Public Committee against torture in Israel Director General Hana Feldman said, "We condemn the use of the assassination policy. It is immoral, illegal and in violation of international conventions." Illegal, yes. But I submit that targeted assassination isn't morally wrong; in fact, in many cases, it may be vastly superior from a moral standpoint to the declaration of full-scale war. I think it's time that we as a world open new discussions on this topic and hopefully realize that, in some cases, assassination does far less harm. Thoughts? |
Fool, apparently
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Feb 8 2006, 08:27 PM | natefizzle |
| I don't think it is wrong. It could work in some countries. It would work on maybe North Korea and Iran. I don't think it would have worked on Iraq, because we overthrough their government not just getting rid of their bad leader. |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Feb 8 2006, 09:21 PM |
|
|
If we are at war with an entity (we used to be able to say "nation"), killing its leaders and soldiers is a simple given. I have no problem with assassinations of declared enemy leaders. For leaders of entities we are not at war with, assassinations attempts will prompt responses in kind. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The War on Terror · Next Topic » |
2:36 PM Feb 6