Hi Theo,
Okay, perhaps this is a topic that can be discussed philosophically if that's what the group wants. And notwithstanding what the proper definition of a philosophical discussion is, I'll just explain that what I have in mind is that this is not a discussion about current or past events themselves, but the morals my question raises.
We recently saw two Israeli agents arrested in Jordan on a mission to assassinate a leading member of Hamas. There was obviously a lot of political fall-out as a consequence, principally concerned with Israel trying to carry out such an operation on Jordanian soil and using Canadian passports. A few years ago, during the Gulf War, we had a debate about whether America had tried to target Saddam Hussein either for assassination or as a target for bombing raids, and whether it was right or wrong to do so. I have a hazy recollection of having read somewhere that Allied plots to assassinate Hitler were not pursued because it was felt that this was not 'the done thing'. (if anyone can put me straight on that, I'd be grateful.)
So under what circumstances is it right for a legitimate, democratic government to cause the leader of another nation to be assassinated ?
I ask because it seems to me a paradox that it is perfectly okay to kill the soldiers of the rival side, however reluctant those soldiers might be about being soldiers, but not okay to kill the rival leader who had created the army in the first place. It seems also, from the examples I've mentioned, that it doesn't matter either that the rival leader is actively using his soldiers to kill soldiers and civilians on the other side - he himself cannot be singled out as a target. Perhaps someone will argue that killing the leader risks enraging his supporters and inflaming the situation. Or perhaps someone will argue that if the populace are really not behind their leader, the onus is on them to resolve the problem. We are lead to believe that the Iraqis are not enthusiastic about Saddam Hussein, and it also seems unduly prissy to me that millions perished in concentration camps while our leaders thought it ungentlemanly to assassinate Hitler.
Clearly, it makes a big difference whether there is a state of armed conflict between the two sides. The case of the Allies v Hitler is different from the case of Uncle Sam v Fidel Castro and different again from the case of Bulgaria(?) v the journalist who was killed with the poison umbrella.
Perhaps the clincher, then, is whether the leader is causing deaths amongst your own populace. Hitler was, Castro and the journalist were not. Sounds simple, problem solved. But what then about the Columbian drug cartels? Are their leaders legitimate targets? Does the target have to be a recognised national leader? If not, what about leaders of groups, such as the IRA or Hamas, who do regard themselves as at war with another country?
Are there any alternatives? What about a snatch-squad? Would that be more acceptable? I suspect it would be, but see few circumstances in which it would be practical. Should the target be publicly indicted? Should there be a trial in absentia? Where does that leave you if your country does not have the death penalty ? What if the judge imposed a community service order instead?
So, hit squads or not?
Cheers,
Mark Griffin
It's an interesting question. I'd always imagined the predilection not to assassinate one's enemies was an expediency invented by the leaders themselves as a form of self preservation. Some ideas, like the selective use of "nasty" weapons, may lead to a one-off gain, but they lead to long term escalation. For a leader to explicitly endorse pot shots at enemy leaders sets a precedent that makes no future leader safe. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it's not something you'd expect the class of leaders to endorse. The exceptions seem to occur when the opposing faction is denied legitimacy (bunch of terrorists, criminals, ... and all that).
In short, I don't think that, practically speaking, the decision is a moral one (however it's dressed up) but a matter of expediency.
Theo (9th October 1997)
Well I've had similar thoughts, except I cannot accept the notion of these leaders behaving collectively, with an almost herd-like instinct which is the nearest I can get to describing it. To go further still and describe them as a 'class' is fundamentally flawed, in my view.
If we were talking about individuals who were brought up in the same traditions, maybe, but consider how diverse this group is: Saddam Hussein and the Dalai Lama; Adolf Hitler and Tony Blair, Genghis Khan and Mary Whitehouse; Idi Amin and Winston Churchill; Che Guevara and Pope Paul II; need I go on? (Apologies for any spelling errors!)
The security that surrounds President Clinton may be more the case of not taking any chances, but his security could hardly be much tighter if he did order a hit squad in against anybody. Nor can the worry of maybe jeopardising the future security of some other world leader be much of a deterrent to Saddam Hussein if he breaks some unspoken convention and sends out a hit squad, thus setting the precedent you write of.
The exception that you mention (terrorists, criminals, etc.) is in fact what highlights the dilemma. They have no worries about targeting democratically elected leaders, and they do in fact do so, as we have seen, the Brighton bombing in an attempt to wipe out the cabinet, and the murder of Lord Mountbatten. But democratically elected leaders acting in this way is considered unconscionable. Why? I should hasten to point out this is not a debate about the rights and wrongs about any individual situation, this is about the principle, remember.
Even in the State versus terrorist case, we see the 'footsoldiers' of both sides slogging it out, but while the terrorist leaders have free shots at the State leaders, the State leaders can only attempt to arrest the terrorist leaders and put them on trial. In a State versus State case, both sides seem constrained, so I can't see that it is a case of expediency - how is it more expedient to pursue a lengthy conflict at potentially heavy cost to the populace in lives lost and collateral damage done as an alternative to assassinating the rival leader? It is neither expedient nor moral.
Mark Griffin
Mark : These are weighty matters. We'll have to leave it to the wider Commensal readership to come up with new ideas. My point on expediency was that if a world leader is seen to be disposing of others of like ilk, that leader will most likely be disposed of likewise. It's raising the stakes too high. Like poisoning in renaissance Italy - it can all get out of hand.
Do you have an alternative explanation ?
Theo (10th October 1997)
Yes, but I don't agree with that point (on expediency). President Bush was hugely embarrassed by suggestions that some of the bombing missions overIraq were deliberate attempts to kill Saddam Hussein. Now if Bush's reluctance stemmed from fear for his own personal safety, it doesn't say much for him, does it? That he should say to a soldier "Go to Iraq and die for your country" while sitting at home himself. And moreover, declining to take decisive action that could have reduced casualties amongst his own troops because of the risk of maybe inviting an attack upon himself.
I think it is plausible that an unelected leader might fear retribution if he killed the leader of a democratic country, knowing that leaders of democratic countries are generally hamstrung by their own political processes. If America believed that Saddam Hussein was behind any successful attempt to assassinate President Clinton, for example, that would certainly unleash military might to crush him. Right now, he can get away with anything in his own country.
My point, and the nub of my question to the group, is made even clearer in a hot war. What possible rationale could explain why Churchill, for example, could not order the assassination of Hitler ? Or even Hitler ordering Churchill's? Notwithstanding whether in these cases such orders had or had not been given, this is about the principle, not specific cases. Sorry to bang on about that.
Mark Griffin
Regards,
Theo