Comments on: Strategic Security

By: sleipner

sleipner — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:12:47 +0000

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you, ford4x4 ;)

However, if we do attempt something a clandestine assassination and are discovered, the international shitstorm would rage for years.

By: ford4x4

ford4x4 — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:07:36 +0000

While I like the idea on the surface, and can see some usefulness once in a while, I agree that it would probably do more harm than good most times. The only thing keeping many countries out of total chaos is the existance of a ruthless dictator. If we were to take him, and him alone, out, it would probably lead to a bloodbath among the civilian populations. It’s probably best NOT to pass this legislation, and just let these things “happen” now and then. It’s a lot easier to deny involvement when you don’t have a law on your books condoning it!

By: sleipner

sleipner — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:53:44 +0000

I’m not necessarily against the idea of assassination of proven terrorists, but in addition to defining how much evidence is necessary to justify assassination, I also worry about where we might end up if we open that door, not to mention what other countries might do once we set the precedent.

Perhaps Israel should send an assassin to take out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After all, his comments sound like terrorist threats, don’t they?

Maybe Pat Robertson could hire an assassin to take out Hugo Chavez…of course he’s not a government but he was told to by God, or at least the voices in his head, so why not?

I agree with you that assassinating Saddam Hussein would have been a far less expensive proposition than the fiasco we ended up with, however it would really not have solved anything, as one of his equally bloodthirsty sons would have likely seized power.

Assassination of bin Ladin would have done little other than to remove one of many capable leaders in a widely dispersed and hidden organization. Another would have succeeded him in short order, perhaps not as inspirational, but just as deadly. In addition, he would then become a martyr, and many Moslems around the world would overlook his bloodthirstiness and proclaim his holiness instead.

I think there are probably cases in which assassination could be the best method of resolving an issue, however, I do not trust this administration to know the difference.

By: Denise Best

Denise Best — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:46:30 +0000

Going with that observation, would you rather the firepower be distributed with the scope of a full military assault or that of a covert operation targeting one versus potentially many?

By: sleipner

sleipner — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:27:46 +0000

Given how accurate our intelligence sources have proven to be in the past I think it interesting that we would presume to be judge, jury, and executioner based on that data alone…

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:08:28 +0000

Listen, the same reason we shouldn’t condone torture is the same reason we shouldn’t condone assassination.

I mean just look at the word ASS-ASS-I-NATION and you know it’s a dumb idea. ;-)

But there are plenty of shadow groups/mercs out there who could take somebody out if we really wanted to. Happens more often then we would like to admit.

By: ford4x4

ford4x4 — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:50:16 +0000

One bullet costs a helluva lot less than a four year war, as long as they think through who comes out on top when they carry it out.