Assassinations: Good or Evil?

[achilles12604]

Most people would say that killing is wrong. However this statement is usually assumed to be the killing of random, or innocent persons. I want to look at this in a different light.

If we had been able to assassinate Hitler AFTER we knew he was committing genocide, but before he had killed so many, would it have been wrong? Would it have been a sin?

What about a smaller scale? If we know that someone is continually raping children but he has a great lawyer and is never convicted, is it wrong to quietly kill him off before he strikes again?

[Furrowed Brow]

Most people would say that killing is wrong.

Yep.

If we had been able to assassinate Hitler AFTER we knew he was committing genocide, but before he had killed so many, would it have been wrong?

Killing is wrong. As morally sensitive adults the thought of killing anyone should make the stomach turn over. But there is another question: how wrong is it to let Hitler live? I think it comes down to which action makes the stomach churn least. Killing Hitler makes me feel less ill than letting him live.

Would it have been a sin?

I do not believe "sin" is a meaningful concept.

What about a smaller scale? If we know that someone is continually raping children but he has a great lawyer and is never convicted, is it wrong to quietly kill him off before he strikes again?

I say shoot the lawyer

[McCulloch]

What about a smaller scale? If we know that someone is continually raping children but he has a great lawyer and is never convicted, is it wrong to quietly kill him off before he strikes again?

I say shoot the lawyer

Even though Furrowed Brow is celebrating October as Sarcasm Awareness Month, he does have a point. So long as there are rewards for professionals such as lawyers to misuse the system to favor their clients, they will continue to do so. What are the negative consequences to a lawyer for bringing up evidence that clearly is inadmissible? The judge tells the jury to ignore it (which they cannot) and the lawyer is admonished to do better next time.

If we had been able to assassinate Hitler AFTER we knew he was committing genocide, but before he had killed so many, would it have been wrong? Would it have been a sin?

American diplomats and lawmakers have had problems with this idea. Genocide was defined by the UN on 9 December 1948 and made an international crime 12 January 1951. But Washington did not ratify it until 1988. How is it that it took the USA forty years to determine that they should agree with the rest of the civilized world that genocide is an international crime? Even then, it is with reservations.

In the cases of genocide since WW2 in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda, the USA has been an active force in delaying any effective action against or recognition that genocide had been occurring.

[achilles12604]

What about a smaller scale? If we know that someone is continually raping children but he has a great lawyer and is never convicted, is it wrong to quietly kill him off before he strikes again?

I say shoot the lawyer

Even though Furrowed Brow is celebrating October as Sarcasm Awareness Month, he does have a point. So long as there are rewards for professionals such as lawyers to misuse the system to favor their clients, they will continue to do so. What are the negative consequences to a lawyer for bringing up evidence that clearly is inadmissible? The judge tells the jury to ignore it (which they cannot) and the lawyer is admonished to do better next time.

The term Criminal Lawyer is redundent.

If we had been able to assassinate Hitler AFTER we knew he was committing genocide, but before he had killed so many, would it have been wrong? Would it have been a sin?

American diplomats and lawmakers have had problems with this idea. Genocide was defined by the UN on 9 December 1948 and made an international crime 12 January 1951. But Washington did not ratify it until 1988. How is it that it took the USA forty years to determine that they should agree with the rest of the civilized world that genocide is an international crime? Even then, it is with reservations.

In the cases of genocide since WW2 in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda, the USA has been an active force in delaying any effective action against or recognition that genocide had been occurring.

So you would also be in favor of knocking off Hitler before he was able to do more harm? Green light for sniper team 1?

[McCulloch]

So you would also be in favor of knocking off Hitler before he was able to do more harm? Green light for sniper team 1?

I agree with the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

[G]enocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Persons committing genocide [...] shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

The OP explicitly states that the offending party had already started to commit genocide. I agree with the United Nations that when such crimes have begun, action, including military action, may be warranted to stop it.

[achilles12604]

So you would also be in favor of knocking off Hitler before he was able to do more harm? Green light for sniper team 1?

I agree with the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

[G]enocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Persons committing genocide [...] shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

The OP explicitly states that the offending party had already started to commit genocide. I agree with the United Nations that when such crimes have begun, action, including military action, may be warranted to stop it.

So I guess now I would require your definition of "punishment". What type of punishment would you see fit for this crime? How would it be implemented? And how would it serve as "prevention" for future incursion as listed in the above link?

[McCulloch]

So I guess now I would require your definition of "punishment". What type of punishment would you see fit for this crime? How would it be implemented? And how would it serve as "prevention" for future incursion as listed in the above link?

My focus was more on prevention than punishment. I do not believe that there is any value in retribution and revenge. Whatever punishment one would choose comes after the intervention to prevent the ongoing criminal activity. Such action that would be taken against individuals convicted of genocide should serve the purpose of discrediting the perpetrators, protecting future potential victims and discouraging future atrocities.

I do not believe in vigilante justice. It is preferable that the interventions are carried out by responsible bodies with a mandate to take appropriate action. For Srebrenica, the UN and the rest of the world stood back and took no action in spite of clear evidence that genocide was occurring. If action had been taken, then Miloevi would not have been in a position to inflict the Raak massacre in Kosovo. Only then did NATO take military action.

[Confused]

If we had been able to assassinate Hitler AFTER we knew he was committing genocide, but before he had killed so many, would it have been wrong? Would it have been a sin?

American diplomats and lawmakers have had problems with this idea. Genocide was defined by the UN on 9 December 1948 and made an international crime 12 January 1951. But Washington did not ratify it until 1988. How is it that it took the USA forty years to determine that they should agree with the rest of the civilized world that genocide is an international crime? Even then, it is with reservations.

In the cases of genocide since WW2 in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda, the USA has been an active force in delaying any effective action against or recognition that genocide had been occurring.

Thank you for pointing out the failure in the US policy on international crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Canada lost a whopping 45,300 in WWII. The US lost 418,500. The Soviet Union lost 23,100,000. How is it that you are justified in determining what our country should do in such circumstances when your own country doesn't know the meaning of loss?

[achilles12604]

So I guess now I would require your definition of "punishment". What type of punishment would you see fit for this crime? How would it be implemented? And how would it serve as "prevention" for future incursion as listed in the above link?

My focus was more on prevention than punishment. I do not believe that there is any value in retribution and revenge. Whatever punishment one would choose comes after the intervention to prevent the ongoing criminal activity. Such action that would be taken against individuals convicted of genocide should serve the purpose of discrediting the perpetrators, protecting future potential victims and discouraging future atrocities.

I do not believe in vigilante justice. It is preferable that the interventions are carried out by responsible bodies with a mandate to take appropriate action. For Srebrenica, the UN and the rest of the world stood back and took no action in spite of clear evidence that genocide was occurring. If action had been taken, then Miloevi would not have been in a position to inflict the Raak massacre in Kosovo. Only then did NATO take military action.

I am still fuzzy about exactly what you would consider to be effective "prevention". You have stated you are against vigilante justice. But what form of punishment would you consider effective?

Or if not punishment, how else would you "prevent" genocide from occurring?

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

[Goat]

So I guess now I would require your definition of "punishment". What type of punishment would you see fit for this crime? How would it be implemented? And how would it serve as "prevention" for future incursion as listed in the above link?

My focus was more on prevention than punishment. I do not believe that there is any value in retribution and revenge. Whatever punishment one would choose comes after the intervention to prevent the ongoing criminal activity. Such action that would be taken against individuals convicted of genocide should serve the purpose of discrediting the perpetrators, protecting future potential victims and discouraging future atrocities.

I do not believe in vigilante justice. It is preferable that the interventions are carried out by responsible bodies with a mandate to take appropriate action. For Srebrenica, the UN and the rest of the world stood back and took no action in spite of clear evidence that genocide was occurring. If action had been taken, then Miloevi would not have been in a position to inflict the Raak massacre in Kosovo. Only then did NATO take military action.

I am still fuzzy about exactly what you would consider to be effective "prevention". You have stated you are against vigilante justice. But what form of punishment would you consider effective?

Or if not punishment, how else would you "prevent" genocide from occurring?

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

It seems to me that after something begins, then you can take corrective action.

Jailing a rapist prevents future rapes. Thinking that someone might rape is not justification for action.

Stopping a genocide that is starting by various means prevents further actions to be taken. Insisting that it 'might' happen is just an excuse to do your own genocide.