Is government sanctioned assassination of political figures morally justified? If so, where do you draw the line?

[Troon_Patrol]

I've always thought of this as the ultimate "trolley question",

For sake of brevity you are a U.S. citizen living in the states. Let's say you have some emerging nation or 3rd world shithole. Things have gone bad, could be the economy or just current gov corruption, the result is a lot of political unrest and radicals are consolidating power and fighting for the throne. Think Stalin, think Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, think Che Guevara, think Kim Jong Un; all before they were in charge. Now they have not yet risen to the level of government and or supreme control of the land but, it's heavily evident they will be soon. It's fairly obvious they will institute some kind of communism or Islamic theocracy directly or indirectly harming their own country and the entire world mostly neighboring countries. Their opposition is a more moderate western values type; free speech, democracy and allowing non violent political opposition to the government blah blah blah, you get it. Not a "Devil you know VS the Devil you don't" situation.

The CIA approaches you based on your credentials being one of a small group of people skilled/trusted/ ethnically/culturally close enough to blend in and get close to the target. The plan is to simply get close enough to shoot them in the back of the head, collect the casing and immediately rendezvous with a means of exiting the country. There is enough evidence the plan and exit plan are legit and self evident, as should they leave you it will be eventually discovered you are working for the CIA and their plausible deniability is virtually impossible, if you are caught they are caught.

 

[BradeRunna]

It depends on who is getting killed. If it's people I like it's bad. If it's people I hate then it's good.

If I were a dictator I would be having people killed all the time. As I always like to say, the killing will stop when things improve.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The line is when the political figure is a citizen of the country ordering the assassination.

 

[Broadside]

Trying to ivory tower debate over whether rulers should kill people is wild. It's the one unifying feature of most rulers throughout history!
Should they? Who cares, they're the only ones powerful enough to do so with impunity.

 

[Troon_Patrol]

The line is when the political figure is a citizen of the country ordering the assassination.

To be clear you are saying, it cannot only be morally done if it is performed by the citizen or citizen resident of the country the target would have influence over? As in I have no moral right to conspire to kill Fidel Castro unless I am Cuban Born or Cuban born and reside in Cuba?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, I just want to just understand what you mean exactly prior to asking a follow up question(s)

Trying to ivory tower debate over whether rulers should kill people is wild. It's the one unifying feature of most rulers throughout history!
Should they? Who cares, they're the only ones powerful enough to do so with impunity.

Surely you can draw a line in the sand between a state executing a convicted child murderer and the state meddling in foreign affairs. Even if that would mean murdering Lenin before he rose to the level he did? Where is your line?




I really don't want to sound like I'm advocating this. After all you would playing a part in playing God killing a living human being. There's a juxtaposition people simply will not cross I find fascinating. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about here but I believe the average KF user would probably kill an active confirmed convicted Pedo as long as they knew they could get away with it, never face trial or even have a detective sweat them; maybe they wouldn't have the balls to pull the trigger themselves but, a simple button labeled "Give Johnathan Yaniv a heart fatal attack" ? Yes, I'm fairly certain vast majority would. Contrasting this , we Jump into a time machine killing Mao Zedong early, who at even the conservative estimates would have killed 40 million people through starvation, all of which couldn't possibly be all Maoist adults believing in his leadership.

Is working for the glowies simply the same same as working for Satan? Is that the part that people take moral issue with? Oliver North ALLEGEDLY (ok definitely) trafficked a ton of cocaine into the states for funding opposition to suppress communism in south America, fueling the crack cocaine epidemic within the states. His Pilot/mule Berry Seal was killed when it was uncovered he played a part, as depicted in the 2017 Film "American Made". They had more than enough resources to keep him safe.

Please don't kill me CIA, I swear I'm not that important or interesting. I just like asking moral/ethical questions and the debate. I also payed for that parking ticket from a couple of weeks ago, just last night, I'm sure it will show in the system shortly.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

To be clear you are saying, it cannot only be morally done if it is performed by the citizen or citizen resident of the country the target would have influence over? As in I have no moral right to conspire to kill Fidel Castro unless I am Cuban Born or Cuban born and reside in Cuba?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, I just want to just understand what you mean exactly prior to asking a follow up question(s)

I'll put it that way. I'm an Israeli, when my government assassinates Palestinians who they perceive as a threat to my country then I fully support them since they always deserve it and would do more damage if left to continue. But if the government kills an Israeli citizen that would be immoral because the government doesn't lack methods to persecute citizens if they are a danger to society.

 

[Overwritten Tapes]

I'll put it that way. I'm an Israeli, when my government assassinates Palestinians who they perceive as a threat to my country then I fully support them since they always deserve it and would do more damage if left to continue. But if the government kills an Israeli citizen that would be immoral because the government doesn't lack methods to persecute citizens if they are a danger to society.

Hopefully the Palestinians take care of you first.

 

[Guntwranglerpole]

But what happens if you and I are the targets. Its like in science fiction how AIs can "predict" that you are going to cause trouble, so you are eliminated before you cause a problem you wouldn't cause under better circumstances.

 

[The Internet Dick]

The CIA approaches you based on your credentials being one of a small group of people skilled/trusted/ ethnically/culturally close enough to blend in and get close to the target. The plan is to simply get close enough to shoot them in the back of the head, collect the casing and immediately rendezvous with a means of exiting the country.

I don't have moral qualms about killing real-deal bad guys who pose a threat to my country. I'm a veteran of an unspecified branch of the Service so for many years of my life that was more or less my job, so as a thought experiment/ethics exercise then sure, I'd be okay with such a mission if the target were truly monstrous and many lives would be saved by taking him out.

However, as a real-life proposition, no way. We're talking about a plan devised by the CIA, the most notorious incompetents in the history of mankind, whose intelligence failures in the last few decades alone have directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people. In all probability, the CIA's plan would fail (as their plans always do) and set off a chain reaction that would precipitate a war with both Mars and the Duchy of Lichtenstein. Nobody wants that.

 

[The best and greatest]

"Morally justified" is a tautology
If something is moral, than it is by definition justified.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

If there's a good reason, why not?

 

[Town Drunk]

I'm against it on legal grounds. For example the USA has a process that legally declares a war. So any military actions against a country we haven't declared war with is against the rules of how the country could conduct warfare. Who care's right? Well those rules are there to avoid pointless conflict that sends American soldiers into conflict/death and avoids military spending unless necessary.

So if we haven't declared war offically, and you are not an official enemy of the USA, any violence against you is illegal, and not approved by the senate.

Of course it happens though. This is the deep state that isn't elected, held accountable, and even the elected officials don't know what is going on. Who cares if Castro gets killed illegally? well

Where does this road end? if the governenment can kill people who are not official enemies of the state, with no trial, and not even admitting they did it, do we even have a real justice system?

Recent examples. Also, I am also not suicidal, and Epstien did not kill himself.

 

[Troon_Patrol]

I'll put it that way. I'm an Israeli, when my government assassinates Palestinians who they perceive as a threat to my country then I fully support them since they always deserve it and would do more damage if left to continue. But if the government kills an Israeli citizen that would be immoral because the government doesn't lack methods to persecute citizens if they are a danger to society.

The sand Niggers will never learn. I'd go beyond assassination and just drop bombs on Gaza once a month till they run out of Jihad or people. Egypt doesn't want them and they'd rather have blood than water, fuck 'em.

But what happens if you and I are the targets. Its like in science fiction how AIs can "predict" that you are going to cause trouble, so you are eliminated before you cause a problem you wouldn't cause under better circumstances.

I knew the man who wrote adaptation of "Minority Report". You don't need to see the film to see the fundamental flaws in the system. You should watch it if you haven't seen it, it's genuinely good film.

We're talking about a plan devised by the CIA, the most notorious incompetents in the history of mankind, whose intelligence failures in the last few decades alone have directly or indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of people. In all probability, the CIA's plan would fail

Well, do you believe they found Bin Laden?

I'm against it on legal grounds. For example the USA has a process that legally declares a war. So any military actions against a country we haven't declared war with is against the rules of how the country could conduct warfare. Who care's right? Well those rules are there to avoid pointless conflict that sends American soldiers into conflict/death and avoids military spending unless necessary.

So if we haven't declared war offically, and you are not an official enemy of the USA, any violence against you is illegal, and not approved by the senate.

Of course it happens though. This is the deep state that isn't elected, held accountable, and even the elected officials don't know what is going on. Who cares if Castro gets killed illegally? well

Where does this road end? if the governenment can kill people who are not official enemies of the state, with no trial, and not even admitting they did it, do we even have a real justice system?

Recent examples. Also, I am also not suicidal, and Epstien did not kill himself.

Last I recall the US never signed the Geneva Convention. It roughly abides by it under international pressure. I think you're speaking of the slippery slope argument.

"Morally justified" is a tautology
If something is moral, than it is by definition justified.

Something tells me you'd be the patsy the CIA plants the gun on just before they exit the country,

 

[Male Idiot]

TGD.

No, it isn't justifiable unless you are at war with said country, at a civil war within your own country, or a third country officially asks you to help them legally execute their citizens.

You are Glowie Smith, and the US is at war with lets say Colombia. Therefore you can shoot Presidente El Donkeyfucko.

You are Shekelberg Snozblatt, and you are in a civil war with Hamas. You can use your jew-jitsu to kill off Durka the local cell leader by impaling him with your nose as a kosher ninja.

You are Igor Vodkachov, and allied with the Taliban State and they ask you to novichoke a rival group in Afganistan.

Of course, no glowie would ever care about this and will glowie anywhere they want. But this only works on weak targets that can't glowie back.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Compared to how war is typically waged, it is certainly preferable.
The primary goal in modern war should be to take out the political leaders actually making the decisions. The death or dismemberment of military targets should be treated as collateral damage.

 

[ambiente]

What do morals have to do with it? States are amoral entities that systematically work for their self-interest. If a state believes another's state's (soon-to-be) leader is a threat, what kind of morals would restrain them from eliminating that threat?

If I am in the position to reject that mission they would make it prohibitively expensive to do so, make the propaganda necessary to justify the killing, use another killer that has no moral qualms about killing anyone, or a combination of the previous options.