- This topic has 6 voices and 22 replies.
-
Posts
-
We say that assassination is not part of the policy of the United States government, but it seems like it could be argued that this is what happened to Osama bin Laden. Is this what happened?
According to Harvard International Review, May 6, 2006 :Black's Law Dictionary defines assassination as “the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons.” If termed “assassination,” then attacks on leaders have been construed as prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899, which outlaws “treacherous” attacks on adversaries, and by the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), which prohibits attacks that rely on “perfidy.” But in recent years, and especially since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Israel and the United States have reframed such actions as “targeted killings,” defining the victims as “enemy combatants” who are therefore legitimate targets wherever they are found. If you are fond of law subtleties :http://hir.harvard.edu/leadership/on-the-offensive
Not that this is the final answer, but…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Under_U.S._lawAccording to that link above, there is a distinction to be made (one which is not included in the definition that Omer cited). It is that assassination seems to involve the killing of a leader for political reasons, as opposed to a person with a combat role. I could see that there would be some circumstances in which the lines would be blurred somewhat, but Bin Laden had a purely non-political position.
but Bin Laden had a purely non-political position.
Not if you take political Islam into account, and one should.
Not if you take political Islam into account, and one should.
What elected position did he hold? None. Yeah, he was “political” in the sense that he was wrapped up in political issues, but not “political” in the sense of participating in representative government.
Why does he have to be a participant in a representative government to make him a political figure. He did very much influence many leaders, local and national, with his rhetoric. And, isn't a tribal leader a political figure?Was Che a participant when the CIA assasinated him?
No, I would not say that Che was a participant in the political process when he was killed. If you say that anyone who influences political leaders with rhetoric, then you'd have to say that just about anyone is “political”, whether it be Dr. Phil, Oprah, or Michael Jackson. So any killing of them could be considered a “political assassination”. I don't think that works. I think it has to be more narrow.I should clarify that a person doesn't necessarily have to hold elected office when he is killed to be assassination, but at least running for office. And a tribal leader holds an office within government of some type.
IF Osama was considered by many as the leader of jihad then he was by all definitions a political leader. IMO
You cannot compare Osama and Oprah. Osama was the leader of a global and organized jihadist movement. Oprah is just a celebrity.
If one describes a “political” person as anyone who “very much influence many leaders, local and national, with his rhetoric”, then that could be Oprah. Do I think she is a “political” person? Not in the sense that I am using it in. But then again, I do not think that the description above describes political persons. Osama was a terrorist; terrorists are not political figures in the sense that they do not run for political office. Osama was the head of an organization for sure, but it was not a political one. Al Qaeda may share certain goals in common with certain political parties, but that does not make it a political party itself.
I say it doesn't matter.If anyone has a problem with killing OBL, let em take it up with SEAL T6.We need to quit worrying about what others think about us when it gets down to matters of national security. OBL targeted the US, made no bones about it. That is a direct threat to our nation. He is now fish food, as it should be.I never thought I would hear these words come out of my mouth, but Obama was spot on in authorizing the hit.
We say that assassination is not part of the policy of the United States government
Who says that?
There is an extant executive order first signed by Ford, but upheld by every president since stating that assassination of foreign leaders is not part of American policy.
