Should assassination be a legitimate foreign policy tool? (1 Viewer)

[Demento1]

This was a question I remember a school friend asking me a while back and I thought it should be pretty interesting for BOS. Voice your opinions on whether or not you think governments should be obliged to use assassination as a foreign policy tool. Please justify if you can! Interested to know what you people think.

 

[equaLIty]

hmm, not a bad question mate. i think governments should use assassination to protect their citizens from terrorist organisations.

 

[Demento1]

hmm, not a bad question mate. i think governments should use assassination to protect their citizens from terrorist organisations.

Fair enough. I figured the government is doing this to fulfil their duty to their citizens although others might think it's morally wrong to assassinate leaders of terrorists.

 

[Aysce]

Imo, yes in order to maintain the safety of the citizens. Even if it is morally wrong, it is able to prevent multiple deaths occurring in the future and decrease the morale of certain terrorist groups.

 

[Demento1]

Imo, yes in order to maintain the safety of the citizens. Even if it is morally wrong, it is able to prevent multiple deaths occurring in the future and decrease the morale of certain terrorist groups.

I was thinking of something like protecting the lives of soldiers as well who don't have to risk their lives to fight terrorists ^. Good point though.

 

[Aysce]

I was thinking of something like protecting the lives of soldiers as well who don't have to risk their lives to fight terrorists ^. Good point though.

Yeah I would also say that, but imo the whole objective of this is to preserve life as BEST as possible, despite the irony of taking some lives in the process >_>

 

[Demento1]

Yeah I would also say that, but imo the whole objective of this is to preserve life as BEST as possible, despite the irony of taking some lives in the process >_>

Haha, and I wonder why the government doesn't choose to use assassination as a weapon...

 

[Siddy123]

Haha, and I wonder why the government doesn't choose to use assassination as a weapon...

'coz they know they are no match for Osama and his boys
lalalalalalala 1.2.3. bboooooooom!!!!!!

 

[mirakon]

Imo, yes in order to maintain the safety of the citizens. Even if it is morally wrong, it is able to prevent multiple deaths occurring in the future and decrease the morale of certain terrorist groups.

It isn't necessarily if one considers an assassin as a component of war and if the person being assassinated threatens the stability of the state (i.e. terrorist attack on Parliament House or something)

 

[Demento1]

It isn't necessarily if one considers an assassin as a component of war and if the person being assassinated threatens the stability of the state (i.e. terrorist attack on Parliament House or something)

Perhaps a way to solve this would be something between diplomacy and full scale war.

 

[Aysce]

It isn't necessarily if one considers an assassin as a component of war and if the person being assassinated threatens the stability of the state (i.e. terrorist attack on Parliament House or something)

You are still taking a life, despite how terrible that person is. Although, I would still want that person killed even if it is wrong.

 

[soloooooo]

Yes. Bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, Jong-Il, Kony, Castro etc should have all been or be assassinated.

 

[Demento1]

You are still taking a life, despite how terrible that person is. Although, I would still want that person killed even if it is wrong.

Hmm, people call me a pacifist and in my opinion I think people deserve a second chance at life I guess.

 

[mirakon]

You are still taking a life, despite how terrible that person is. Although, I would still want that person killed even if it is wrong.

yes you are still taking a life but the philosophical question is:

Is it worth it?

 

[Kimyia]

But then you get into the whole: where will the line be drawn and who will regulate such assassinations.

 

[deswa1]

Consider though if we think it is alright to assasinate some foreigner, what would stop nations such as Iraq assasinating someone like Barack Obama? Right now, they wouldn't really want to do it because even though they are already at war, if the government was linked to such an attack, it would cause international fallout and even more countries make wage war to prevent further assasinations. If however assasinations were viewed as 'correct' foreign policy, this deterrent wouldn't be present.

 

[Demento1]

But then you get into the whole: where will the line be drawn and who will regulate such assassinations.

I thought governments couldn't use assassination because the general public feared they would abuse their power as you kindly mentioned.

 

[mirakon]

Consider though if we think it is alright to assasinate some foreigner, what would stop nations such as Iraq assasinating someone like Barack Obama? Right now, they wouldn't really want to do it because even though they are already at war, if the government was linked to such an attack, it would cause international fallout and even more countries make wage war to prevent further assasinations. If however assasinations were viewed as 'correct' foreign policy, this deterrent wouldn't be present.

I don't really get your use of "correct" foreign policy.

Are you using it in the sense that if something is considered "correct" countries are under no grounds to do anything about it?

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

Yes. Bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, Jong-Il, Kony, Castro etc should have all been or be assassinated.

I lol'ed hard

 

[OzKo]

I was thinking of something like protecting the lives of soldiers as well who don't have to risk their lives to fight terrorists ^. Good point though.

Soldiers don't need to be protected. Their job is to defend and kill.