Assassination Season Is Open

Here's an interesting Op/Ed on the topic of state sponsored assassinations, which kind of struck me odd as to why the author would write this piece at the moment. He discusses some history of assassinations and even claims that it could be the morally correct thing to do in certain circumstances, and in the end hints towards thinking twice about taking out the Iranian President.

www.nytimes.com

State-sponsored assassinations are back in season. Targeted snuff jobs of state enemies are on the rise from Dubai to Dagestan, from Yemen to Waziristan. Even the United States has returned to the practice: American military drones and special operations have been pushing the limits of President Ford’s 1976 executive ban against assassinations.

When one factors in the vast human cost of cruder alternatives, assassination seems like a logical option for dealing with foreign foes. Instead of invading Iraq at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, for example, would not a deft poisoning of Saddam Hussein — a “liquid murder” — have been morally justified? Who has ever called the would-be assassins of Hitler and Himmler anything but heroes?

Advances in lethal technology are making assassinations exponentially easier against even the most hardened security systems. Drones, aerolosization devices, synthetic opiates, new biological agents and radiological weapons can be developed without fear of attribution.

They were never "out" of season.

It has just become more apparent now recently, to the formerly naive.

the problem with this is perspective

which side of the spectrum u r on

What if the person killed was actually good
and just offed for no other reason than he
wouldn't play ball with the corporate world?
Then u got the bad guys assassinating the good guys.

who the he!! makes that choice of WHO
gets assassinated and who doesn't.

It's a bad idea and against God's commandments.
Thou shalt not kill

but doing it preemptively with malice makes it
justifiable by Gov??? not hardly !!

reply to post by JacKatMtn


This is the part that stuck out to me.

>>>>>Advances in lethal technology are making assassinations exponentially easier against even the most hardened security systems. Drones, aerosolization devices, synthetic opiates, new biological agents and radiological weapons can be developed without fear of attribution.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

It's a bad idea and against God's commandments.
Thou shalt not kill

but doing it preemptively with malice makes it
justifiable by Gov??? not hardly !!

I guess I'm pooched according to that statement, but seriously I've been good for 20 years. So, God's "people" never fought a war, never killed anyone or caused anyone to be killed deliberately? Where does that leave all the jewish soldiers after Moses? Or say the mossad? Or the IDF (does that stand for ignorant dopey f***kers)? How about Christ and tha Pharisees? Seems to me we have a bit of a contradiction here? God says it's ok to kill if He says so, so, I guess He told me to do it could be a good excuse right? It's one of those "one size fits all kinda excuses" where no one can prove He didn't tell you!

Interesting conundrum, so a makeshift quote... "When God wants a war or a plague, who do you think He sends? An angel. You don't ever want to meet an angel." - from the Prophecy (I think Christopher Walken said it).

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 4/14.2010 by bobs_uruncle]

Did a search on the author's of the op/ed to see if these guys could possibly have some connections in high places which may have warranted writing the article and it seems they are both quite connected...

Mark Medish

Mark Medish is a visiting scholar and senior adviser at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He joined the Endowment in 2006, and served as vice president for studies from 2006–2008.

Prior to joining the Endowment, Medish was a partner in the Washington public law and policy practice group of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. Before joining Akin Gump, Medish served in the Clinton administration as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs on the National Security Council from 2000–2001.

Joel McCleary

Joel McCleary "is one of the foremost political strategists in the world. Currently, Mr. McCleary is founder and Chairman of the Board of Pharmathena, one of the leading companies in biotechnology and bio-defense in the United States. In addition, Mr. McCleary is co-founder of ABI and a partner in DMG, Inc.
Over the years, Mr. McCleary has consulted for several secretaries of state on foreign elections on several continents. He is an expert in strategic planning, grassroots development, fundraising, research and all aspects of democratization and election management."

I may be reading too much into this, but hey, it's ATS let's explore the possibilities

After reading this next piece, it looks like another world leader is being sent a subtle message...

America and the Dictators:From Ngo Dinh Diem to Hamid Karzai

The crisis has come suddenly, almost without warning. At the far edge of American power in Asia, things are going from bad to much worse than anyone could have imagined. The insurgents are spreading fast across the countryside. Corruption is rampant. Local military forces, recipients of countless millions of dollars in U.S. aid, shirk combat and are despised by local villagers. American casualties are rising. Our soldiers seem to move in a fog through a hostile, unfamiliar terrain, with no idea of who is friend and who is foe.

After years of lavishing American aid on him, the leader of this country, our close ally, has isolated himself inside the presidential palace, becoming an inadequate partner for a failing war effort. His brother is reportedly a genuine prince of darkness, dealing in drugs, covert intrigues, and electoral manipulation. The U.S. Embassy demands reform, the ouster of his brother, the appointment of honest local officials, something, anything that will demonstrate even a scintilla of progress.

After all, nine years earlier U.S. envoys had taken a huge gamble: rescuing this president from exile and political obscurity, installing him in the palace, and ousting a legitimate monarch whose family had ruled the country for centuries. Now, he repays this political debt by taunting America. He insists on untrammeled sovereignty and threatens to ally with our enemies if we continue to demand reforms of him. Yet Washington is so deeply identified with the counterinsurgency campaign in his country that walking away no longer seems like an option.

It's a fairly lengthy piece, but the tone of the article seems to be letting Karzai know that he is pushing buttons, and might need to reconsider the path he has chosen.

Of course that's just my own speculation on these recent articles on the topic of state sponsored assassinations.

I am quite sure that some of the members are already aware of the Anwar al-Awlaki is an authorized target of the US administration, I missed that bit of news so all of these assassination related articles begin to make some sense.

In this piece today, at least one of our elected Democrats has voiced his opinion on the policy of assassinations approved by the White House.

www.alternet.org

There has been almost universal silence among Congressional Democrats on the Obama administration's recently revealed decision to authorize the assassination of a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, has been accused of providing inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged "underwear bomber," and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter. In recent weeks, there has been a dramatic surge in U.S. government chatter about the alleged threat posed by al-Awlaki, with anonymous U.S. officials accusing him of directly participating in terror "plots" (his family passionately disputes this).

Several Democrats refused, through spokespeople, to comment on the assassination plan when contacted by...

For another related opinion article on the topic:

www.santiagotimes.cl

I wouldn't have believed you if you'd told me 20 years ago that America would someday be routinely firing missiles into countries it's not at war with. For that matter, I wouldn't have believed you if you'd told me a few months ago that America would soon be plotting the assassination of an American citizen who lives abroad.

Shows you how much I know. President Obama, who during his first year in office oversaw more drone strikes in Pakistan than occurred during the entire Bush presidency, last week surpassed his predecessor in a second respect: he authorized the assassination of an American - Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Imam who after 9/11 moved from Virginia to Yemen, a base from which he inspires such people as the Fort Hood shooter and the would-be underwear bomber.

Students of the law might raise a couple of questions: 1) Doesn't it violate international law to fire missiles into Pakistan (especially on a roughly weekly basis) when the Pakistani government has given no formal authorization? 2) Wouldn't firing a missile at al-Awlaki in Yemen compound the international-law question with a constitutional question - namely whether giving the death penalty to an American without judicially establishing his guilt deprives him of due process?

Here is the solution:

"At the Village Pizza shop, as they were sitting down to consume a pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim, 'So what other inventions are you working on?" Jim replied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's really evolutionary. Literally REVOLUTIONARY.'

'Okay, Jim, which government are you planning to overthrow?,' she asked, playing along.

'All of them,' answered Jim."

Political Implications Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public's trust, or misuses the powers that they feel should be limited. A person whose actions are so abusive or improper that the citizenry shouldn't have to tolerate it.

What if they could go to their computers, type in the miscreant's name, and select a dollar amount: The amount they, themselves, would be willing to pay to anyone who "predicts" that officeholder's death. That donation would be sent, encrypted and anonymously, to a central registry organization, and be totaled, with the total amount available within seconds to any interested individual. If only 0.1% of the population, or one person in a thousand, was willing to pay $1 to see some government slimeball dead, that would be, in effect, a $250,000 bounty on his head.

Further, imagine that anyone considering collecting that bounty could do so with the mathematical certainty that he could not be identified, and could collect the reward without meeting, or even talking to, anybody who could later identify him. Perfect anonymity, perfect secrecy, and perfect security. And that, combined with the ease and security with which these contributions could be collected, would make being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition. Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner would even risk staying in office

Read the entire thing here, but be aware: This guy is IN JAIL right now just for writing this. That's right, just for writing this. He was put in jail for Thoughtcrime, many years ago. And he is still there to this day.

Here is the solution:

"At the Village Pizza shop, as they were sitting down to consume a pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim, 'So what other inventions are you working on?" Jim replied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's really evolutionary. Literally REVOLUTIONARY.'

'Okay, Jim, which government are you planning to overthrow?,' she asked, playing along.

'All of them,' answered Jim."

Political Implications Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public's trust, or misuses the powers that they feel should be limited. A person whose actions are so abusive or improper that the citizenry shouldn't have to tolerate it.

What if they could go to their computers, type in the miscreant's name, and select a dollar amount: The amount they, themselves, would be willing to pay to anyone who "predicts" that officeholder's death. That donation would be sent, encrypted and anonymously, to a central registry organization, and be totaled, with the total amount available within seconds to any interested individual. If only 0.1% of the population, or one person in a thousand, was willing to pay $1 to see some government slimeball dead, that would be, in effect, a $250,000 bounty on his head.

Further, imagine that anyone considering collecting that bounty could do so with the mathematical certainty that he could not be identified, and could collect the reward without meeting, or even talking to, anybody who could later identify him. Perfect anonymity, perfect secrecy, and perfect security. And that, combined with the ease and security with which these contributions could be collected, would make being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition. Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner would even risk staying in office

Read the entire thing here, but be aware: This guy is IN JAIL right now just for writing this. That's right, just for writing this. He was put in jail for Thoughtcrime, many years ago. And he is still there to this day.

www.outpost-of-freedom.com...

Chaos that was an amazing read, thankyou very much for sharing that, the writer is an absolute genius; what a unique and unpresidented idea. Very interesting thankyou very much.

Forbidden Archives