The debate "You can not justify the assassination of a murder because it goes against their han rights" was started by
May 6, 2015, 11:56 am.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 31 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
bearunter posted 2 arguments, Shahmir posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 7 arguments, jonatron5 posted 1 argument, Getmurked posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
bearunter, Shahmir, Nor_Omer, Zach_Hill, AnkGanu and 7 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, PsychDave, sulei, jonatron5, abbiesid543, Getmurked, Violet, toughgamerjerry, Benzdick, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken, action007man and 19 visitors disagree.
if the government is corrupt, then yes, assasianation is justified. a revolution is already under way, assasination is then just a warfare tactic( a smart one at that), why would it be viewed any other way, especially in the heat of a war?
I can accept that.
Let's move away from assassination by a government. If you were a citizen of a nation with a corrupt government who ruled through fear and violence, and they refused to relinquish power, is assassination a justified method of trying to remove them from power. For real world examples, something like the Arab Springs uprising where the uprising has popular support. As a civilian, you are not able to declare war, so at best it is a civil war, and from the government's perspective it is terrorism and treason.
Sure, I would have to concede that idea if it was in that context. Unfortunately, that is a war scenario, and practically anything can be done in a war.
I took this debate in a more practical and realistic way so I apologise.
I have already given a historical real world example, which you confirmed would be, in your framework, justified. Once you have agreed that there are potential justifications, how can you continue to argue that one can not justify assassination?
I argued that the only way it is justified is when it overcomes every precedent in place. When you overcome those conditions, it is at that point when it becomes justified.
I was debating this in a realistic world, so it's necessary to contextualise a debate and portray a realistic scenario to show how the assassination will be justified. Until you can do so, all the harms will accrue under your side.
I agree that sanctions and negotiations are almost always better options, but the topic is that you can not justify assassination, not that it is always justified. If there is even a single instance when it can be justified, it means that under the right conditions you can justify assassination, therefore you must vote disagree.
Using that example, yes, because they were in a war. Practically, anything can happen in a war, and assassination is a military tactic.
The current measures we have are significant and they will work. Using the Russia and Crimea, the international sanctions that exist were significant and were not extremely strong as Russia rejected the claims. However, it was reported that the US was considering sending troops to Crimea to help.
I also have to mention alliances and their strength. ASEAN, EU and NATO all have a collective security mentality whereby in the event one country attacks another country, every other country in the alliance rushes to help. This is significant as it is a measure to protect countries and prevent dictators from taking over.
You say that there are other, better options. What are these options? If sanctions fail, what options does the international community have to prevent a dictator from killing people, funding terrorism, or causing wars? No one is trying to apply a blanket justification, but the topic is that you CAN NOT justify the assassination. If there is even a single theoretical situation when it would be justified the topic is false, as then you can justify it at least under some conditions.
I hate using the example, but if you had the deciding vote on whether or not to assassinate Hitler preventing the genocide and before so many young men were killed in WW2, would you vote to or not?
As analysed, using it as a means of last resort means you impede all other pre existing conditions. The lack of global consensus towards the dictator, the subjective views of morality.
Applying a blanket justification is extremely problematic. This wouldn't be a last resort because there are other, better measures in place to handle the problem. As concluded, now, when you assassinate a person as a last resort, it is done solely on the justification that I think (not we, the global community) they are wrong.
In my opinion you loose your rights the second you abuse my family. I will hunt and destroy anyone who harms me or mine
I certainly agree that assassination should be a last resort after every possible other method has failed. But since there are times when it is legal, and moral to do so, I have to vote against the topic, as there are times when it is justified and not a violation of human rights.
In that context of assassination, yes sure. The leader is a military target, but this is true in any war and is something that countries can do because, obviously, they are in war.
I was thinking about this in a realistic way, whereby in the world we live in where there are dictatorships who are not in war. For instance, North Korea.
Furthermore, it is up to international law to settle these atrocities. Especially when things like sanctions, embargo and dissolution of economic ties themselves are enough.
It's especially important to recognise the significance of international law. When Russia (supposedly) invaded Crimea, there were tons of international pressure that were unsupportive. The only reason why there were no absolute sanctions were because there was support for Russia (Russians) and Russia claimed they did not do it.
Killing a murderer is not necessarily equivalent to terrorism. If the US killed leaders of non-hostile nations because they disagreed with their policies, that is a crime. If the nations are at war, that same leader becomes a military target, which is acceptable by international law.
Let me ask you this, if killing a leader could stop a genocide a save thousands, possibly tens of thousands of lives, is it immoral to do so? If you could stop atrocities by killing a fanatical leader, is it worse to do so, or to stand by and do nothing but talk about how terrible it is? All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. (I am paraphrasing a bit)
I agree. I have multiple reasons for this.
1. The analysis on rights is indeed right. However, it is not up to you or I as an individual to act upon it. It is the law which determines the actions needed to combat atrocities. I am trying to assert that the international community plays a vital role in the safe guarding of a peaceful world.
In the context of a dictator, there are external influences like international relations which can bring down the regime. It's the idea where there is general international consensus that something is wrong and political dialogue will happen.
Furthermore, this issues encourage the local community (by the oppressed) to connect with international dialogue and thus foster international communities to change the regimes. . It is also the case where establishments like the ICC have direct power in this matter.
For instance, in 2014, there was a mandate for North Korea's leader to be prosecuted in the court. The vote was over hundred countries vs a several countries which included China which vetoed the vote. This is an example that the international community can play a role in combating atrocities.
2. Considering that, it is apparent that opposition is doing so without this existing solutions. It is important then I assert there is no global support or intention for this purpose. It is at this point where we have to question your country's moral code to another country's moral code. Simply saying, the way your country perceives to be right is different from what other countries seem to think is right.
It is the reason why it is extremely difficult to establish a global moral code as different countries have different views on morality. Some consider the death penalty to be alright, some do not. Some consider homosexuality to be alright, some do not. It is why countries like China believe North Korea's actions are okay and pointless.
It is also important to note that things like murder (which should be universally abhorred) is something that everyone would note and seek to change. Therefore, these types of issues would already be solved.
you can only justify an assassination if you justify terrorism because what we would be doing is justifying killing people to enforce are views on them are morals are rights which is what terrorists are doing in a more extreme way so unless you justify terrorism I can not see how you can justify an assassination of anyone.
If a dictator has military rank (all dictators that I know do as they use military might to stay in power) then they are valid targets for military action. The same is true of democratically elected leaders. If they are at war, the leaders who have military rank are considered combatants. So in some cases, the assassination of a leader is not a violation of their human rights.
Rights are earned by mutual need. You and I need these rights to be true, in order for them to be rights. If I have them, but you don't, then they're not rights, just the imposition of power.
If you take other people's rights away, you waive those rights in relationship to yourself.
If my premise is rational, then assassinating a (true) murderous dictator is not to take away his human rights. He already took away his rights. But this specifically has to be a dictator who is also murderous.
It's plausible that a tyrant could also be a just ruler, whose law is rational. It doesn't always happen... But we wouldn't have the right to assassinate that individual.
There's also a chance that agents from Nation A don't have a right to interfere in the politics of Nation B. But there hasn't been much work in the development of a unifying global moral code of behavior between nations of different types and what kinds of rights nations have between each other. Which is why international relations are considered to be in a state of anarchy.
you can not justify the assassination of a dictator because you would assassinate them due to them breaking human rights but to justify an assassination of them you would have to justify breaking their human rights which in turn would be justifying what you would be killing for.