Assassination

[Neil_Anthony]

A few days ago an Iranian nuclear scientist was assasinated, probably by a foreign intelligence agency.

1. Is there a moral justification for us to support government decisions to perform assassinations like that?
2. If one works for the CIA, for example, would you be morally justified in carrying out an assassination like that if ordered to?

My gut feeling is that this assassination was a good thing, much better than bombing the nuclear scientist’s place of work from an airplane. But I’m not sure how it fits into just war theory, or does it fall under some other part of moral theology?

 

[PAboy57]

Hi Neil,

You are going to get a ton of responses to this on both sides of the fence.

1. So I will way in and say it is murder which violates the commandments.
2. Last I heard CIA doesn’t assassinate (at least since the Bay of Pigs).

Just declare war and get it over with. Any man is replacable with another evil man. It is only a question of time. There are so many evil replacements what sense is there to buying a little time. They will continue unless you eliminate the entire threat. The Old Testament didn’t play games. The Hebrews wiped out their enemies with God’s help.

Just 2 cents worth.

 

[Rascalking]

You are going to get a ton of responses to this on both sides of the fence.
.

Well said!

1. I’m not sure the murder of a private citizen would be moral. That seems to me a bit extreme.
2. I want to say “No, it’s not justified”. But I’m sure that there are situations that it would be permissible. I don’t know any off the top of my head.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I believe that it MIGHT be appropriate, under very limited circumstances.

Would it have been immoral to have killed Hitler about 1936? He had specified exactly what he planned to do in his book, “Mein Kampf”, and by 1936 it was obvious that he was carrying out his plans.

I believe that assassinating him at that point would have stopped World War II, saved the lives of countless millions of people, and would have been morally justified.

The same is true of Joseph Stalin about 1938/1939. By that time, he had ordered the murder of millions of his won people (and millions more would follow).

The problem is, who decides, and under what criteria? That is the truly difficult part.

 

[Sonny1954]

I find it most interesting that the American public’s attitude toward assassination of foreign leaders has done a 180 in the last 50 years.

CIA assassination plots against Castro, for example, began in the Eisenhower administration, continued through the Kennedy years and only ended in 1965. They were hushed up because the government, probably rightfully, believed that most Americans would be shocked that their government leaders would attempt such things.

These days, however, we speak openly (almost righteously) of assassinating Bin Laden. I guess we’ve just become more jaded with the passing of time and parade of events.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I guess a lot of people are more comfortable with war than with assassination. Like some people think the war in Afghanistan was justified to get Bin Laden, but that just sending in special forces to kill him would be wrong? But so many more people suffer when you have a war than if you just go in after the target.

If we have to go to war with Iran, that seems like way more people will die than if we just keep sabotaging their nuclear reactors and assassinating or kidnapping their top nuclear scientists.

 

[Rascalking]

I believe that it MIGHT be appropriate, under very limited circumstances.

Would it have been immoral to have killed Hitler about 1936? He had specified exactly what he planned to do in his book, “Mein Kampf”, and by 1936 it was obvious that he was carrying out his plans.

I believe that assassinating him at that point would have stopped World War II, saved the lives of countless millions of people, and would have been morally justified.

The same is true of Joseph Stalin about 1938/1939. By that time, he had ordered the murder of millions of his won people (and millions more would follow).

The problem is, who decides, and under what criteria? That is the truly difficult part.

I have always used the same situation you said when people argue against the assasination thing.

Your are, without question, totally right. Both Stalin and Hitler deserved immediate death once their plans where known. In a sane society, there wouldn’t be argument over that.

 

[Newbie2]

I have always used the same situation you said when people argue against the assasination thing.

Your are, without question, totally right. Both Stalin and Hitler deserved immediate death once their plans where known. In a sane society, there wouldn’t be argument over that.

Deserved immediate death? Not consistant with Catholic theology, if there was another way to keep them from implimenting their plans.

 

[tafan]

Deserved immediate death? Not consistant with Catholic theology, if there was another way to keep them from implimenting their plans.

First of all, I am not for sure I agree with this, will have to think about it. In general, I don’t know why Hitler and Stalin being given a death penalty would be inconsistent with Catholic theology.

In response to the general question of assasination:

Off the top of my head as to assasinations in general, I think in very limited circumstances, it is probably ok. Those circumstances would be a) during a just war b) death of the target would have an positive impact on the outcome of the war and c) the target is a combatant (in perhaps a broad sense, a key political leader who is leading the opposing side would likely qualify).

Now, I suppose, since the state has the right to impose capital punishment, I suppose there is also the theoretical possibility that an assasination could be carried out as part of a just applicatoin of capital punishement, ie the target violated some law and was justly condemned. Once again, speculation off the top of my head.

Interesting topic.

 

[GratefulFred]

Does the ends justify the means?

Does setting back Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb, say 3 days, justify an assassination? How about an expected delay of 3 years?

Is an assassination a proportional response to Iran’s nuclear threat to stability in the ME and the world?

Is it right or wrong depending on whether it was a self appointed shooter or one acting on orders from a competent government that thoroughly reviewed the options to dealing with Iran’s nuclear threat?

Is an authorized assassination any different than drones spotting and shooting a group of bad guys. They too did not know what hit them and thus they had no chance, at that moment to defend themselves. But they were and would continue to seriously harm us.

Killing for selfish reasons is wrong. But killing in defense of the common good is generally acceptable. And it seems better to kill fewer than more in our attempts to protect the common good.

 

[tafan]

GratefulFred, good questions, but I think it best to concentrate first on the generalities rather than this specific case, then apply results to specific case. So I will answer the general questions

Does the ends justify the means?

No, which is why I think any assination would need to be an act of (just) war, so it is not an immoral means.

Is an authorized assassination any different than drones spotting and shooting a group of bad guys. They too did not know what hit them and thus they had no chance, at that moment to defend themselves. But they were and would continue to seriously harm us.

Very good. I see no difference at all. So it would seem if the unmanned drones are a legitimate means of warfare, than perhaps assasination is also. More specifically, perhaps some of the unmanned drone missions are simply assasinations.

 

[GratefulFred]

Hi Tafan,

I was taught that there are some means we cannot use even at the expense of not achieving a good and necessary end. I was also taught that there are means individuals cannot use but are reserved for use by competent authority. But even authority cannot use any and ALL means. I cannot search your house, but the police can, but they cannot do an illegal search. We have rules of engagement in war.

Often, we are just too quick to kill when, if we worked harder, we could solve the problem without killing. Often we kill too quickly, pre-judging that no other way will succeed. We cannot see other future events that, if we waited, would have solved the problem without killing. Conveinence is a poor substitute for necessity, IMO.

Our highest responsibility is to God. But we live in a secular world that often ignores the power of God if we but sincerely call upon Him. If the vast majority of the West were to sincerely pray, would not God resolve the ME problems?

But, back to the question. I also believe that all life is precious, even the lives of my enemies. If we do fight, I am all for taking the fewest lives as possible.

Although it has not been formally declared, I do believe we are in a just war with the extremists in ME. If the assassination bought us more time to resolve the problem short of a much larger conflct then perhaps it is tolerable. I just wish we had better ways to resolve conflicts.

 

[tafan]

Intrinsically evil means can never be used to justify the ends. But killing is not intrisically evil. It is justified in the persecution of a just war, for example. It is also justified in self-defense. So it seems to me, that the ends-does-not-justify the means argument does not come into play here. Finally, the state has the right, in order to protect itself, to captial punishment (fyi, I am not a supporter of capital punishment in the US at this point in time). I don’t know of any other circumstances which it is allowed.

Your point about needing a competent authority is good, as 2 or my 3 examples above are reserved for competent authorities.

So the issue of when assasination becomes morally justified seems to boil down to if it fits any of these three scenarios.

Although it has not been formally declared, I do believe we are in a just war with the extremists in ME. If the assassination bought us more time to resolve the problem short of a much larger conflct then perhaps it is tolerable. I just wish we had better ways to resolve conflicts.

With respect to actual terrorists in the middle east, I agree. So the assasination, via drones or actual assasins, of terrorist and leaders seems permissible to me. With a government authority in Iran? that seems a little bit of a stretch. As to better ways to resolve conflicts, we do have them. We use them all the time and often successfully. But it takes two to tango.

 

[Rascalking]

Deserved immediate death? Not consistent with Catholic theology, if there was another way to keep them from implementing their plans.

Your right. Stalin and Hitler deserved a stern talking to instead of immediate death. The millions and millions of innocent people they killed don’t really matter.

 

[GratefulFred]

The ME is very complex indeed. While we call ourselves “Christians” and they “Muslims,” we know that Christians have many divisions as do Muslims. And each of us have a varying degree of commitment to the tennets of our Faith. And among Christians, we have a number of Nations with their own self interests and then political parties or factions within those nations. The same is true of the ME. Other than Israel, there is no democracy in the ME. Leaders stay in power as long as they can hold it. They usually hold power through fear and brutal retaliation. Thus we cannot paint the ME with one brush, one color.

To gain an understanding of anyone’s intent we must pay close attention to what they say and also what they do. Saddam said and did and got taken out. Al Qaeda said and did and has been taken down, but not yet out.

Iran is saying a lot that we ignore or think, “Well, not really.” But Iran is controlling Syria and Hezbollah who attack Israel whenever they can and Iran is influencing Iraq. Add to that, Iran is seriously pursuing nuclear weapons and missile delivery.

In a rough parity, it is 1935 again. Then Hitler, now Iran. Appeasement was tried and failed. And we paid a much bigger price because, in our "live and let live’ love of freedom, we could bring ourselves to deal with the growing problem until it was too large. Then, all sides paid a terrible price.

What happens when Iran does have nuclear missiles? To say, we don’t know and have to trust them, is not a prudent path. Given the lessons of history, to frustrate them where and when we can seems prudent and does buy time for other events to occur that may stop their pursuit of nuclear missiles.

Saddam played suicide by cop on a grand scale. Will the equally “crazy” Iranian leadership do the same and fire off a nuke and let a nuke war ensure?

Do we act, OR NOT, out of fear or out of prudence? Is our intelligence good or bad? Who can predict the future so accurately as to run the risk they won’t launch but do. Or do we err the other way and prejudge the future and assassinate without a hot war in progress in hope of preventing or at least delaying nuclear war?

If Iran is indeed in an undeclared war with us and fighting in their own way, are we not then morally justified in fighting back at a level as low as we can?

 

[Sonny1954]

If killing is not instrinsically evil, than NOTHING is. There may be circumstances which mitigate against the culpability of the individual killer, i.e. s/he’s in a war or an armed intruder is in your home. But even those circumstances don’t make killing morally right.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If killing is not instrinsically evil, than NOTHING is. There may be circumstances which mitigate against the culpability of the individual killer, i.e. s/he’s in a war or an armed intruder is in your home. But even those circumstances don’t make killing morally right.

Killing the innocent is intrinsically evil. But not all killing is intrinsically evil.

In fact, it would be a sin for a father to not kill (as a last resort) someone who was trying to kill his family. He has a moral duty to defend your family. And it is virtuous for him to do so. It’s not evil with an excuse, it is good and praiseworthy.

 

[Newbie2]

First of all, I am not for sure I agree with this, will have to think about it. In general, I don’t know why Hitler and Stalin being given a death penalty would be inconsistent with Catholic theology.

In response to the general question of assasination:

Off the top of my head as to assasinations in general, I think in very limited circumstances, it is probably ok. **Those circumstances would be a) during a just war b) death of the target would have an positive impact on the outcome of the war and c) the target is a combatant (in perhaps a broad sense, a key political leader who is leading the opposing side would likely qualify). **
Now, I suppose, since the state has the right to impose capital punishment, I suppose there is also the theoretical possibility that an assasination could be carried out as part of a just applicatoin of capital punishement, ie the target violated some law and was justly condemned. Once again, speculation off the top of my head.

Interesting topic.

As part of a just war, sure, if the target of the assination were to be vital to the bad guy’s war effort, it could be justified. But as punishment, no. One would have to hold a trial, establish guilt and sentencing before any punishment should be meted out.

And capital punishment as was done with some of the leaders of Nazi Germany is not within Catholic Theology. We won the war and removed those leaders as threats; jailing would worked just as well. We cannot take a life in retribution.

Nowadays, though, someone like Bin Ladin we might have to kill in the attempt to capture him; he may not allow being taken alive. Such is allowed, but the goal cannot be his death, rather the removal of him as a threat.

There may be the situation where keeping a leader captive might not end a war, maybe only make it worse. Hypothetically, if there were a sufficient number of combatants who would continue to fight to the death as long as Saddam was alive, it could be argued that a death penalty would be morally permissible.

Your right. Stalin and Hitler deserved a stern talking to instead of immediate death. The millions and millions of innocent people they killed don’t really matter.

My point sailed right over your head, didn’t it? Or did you not read my entire post?

 

[Rascalking]

My point sailed right over your head, didn’t it? Or did you not read my entire post?

Well, that was sort of rude. Do you think your so insightful, wise and bright and that I can’t understand you? Your right, how I managed to get to age 30 without your insights is a true miracle.

I read your post, and my response was clearly in jest. It’s totally tongue in cheek.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, that was sort of rude. Do you think your so insightful, wise and bright and that I can’t understand you? Your right, how I managed to get to age 30 without your insights is a true miracle.

I read your post, and my response was clearly in jest. It’s totally tongue in cheek.

Sorry, I had no intent to be insulting. I clearly failed to see through your sarcasm. I’m used to most people using the icon for tongue in cheek and the for sarcasm.

I honestly wasn’t sure if you were agreeing or sarcastically disagreeing with me. My bad.