Government Sponsored Assassinations

Does this include regicide? Bond, James Bond.

so when third world countries do it, it terroism, right? but if it is us doing it it is government sponsored assasination? hmm- more hypocrisies brought to you by the modern failing democratic system

Have all of you forgotten that while we may not be hiring hitmen, we are collecting intelligence and then putting bombs on target? Nothing says "Government Sponsored Assassination" like a 2,000lbs bomb dropped on the head of an Al-Qaeda idiot.

Salavador Allende, Patrice Lumumba, etc. etc. Some reviewers on here act like this is a new idea. And others act like whoever sits in the Oval Office should start acting like Michael Corleone.

"Government Sponsored Assasinations" makes it sound like they are going to start selling naming rights to recoup their costs.  "This Assasination brought to you by Haliburton", "The RAND Corporation (TM) Assasination of Ngo Dihn Diem" or "The Ford Theatre Presents - the Death of Lincoln".

This is certainly around today, it is just covered up much better today!!! I gave it 1 because it is not a very nice fact!

irishgit, your last post explains why Italians don't get elected president in this country.

We never find out until decades later.

We need more of them.

can we do this to our own leaders, too?

Why not the rules of war have been thrown out the window. The Geneva convention is meaningless to terrorists. Why should we continue to fight this war with one arm tied behind are backs. It may be the only way to take care of problems through out the world.

Make no mistake, a government sponsored assassination is an act of war (though not necessarily a declaration of same) if the target is a high state official or represents a foreign state; therefore, the use and repercussions of assassinations must be thoroughly discussed and analyzed by the top brass prior to opting for this method of defense and pursuing state interests. As whether to use assassination is so fact specific, no rule of thumb will be much help in the decision; however, as with any act of war, it should be used only as a last resort for a compelling need. The problem is that this general rule doesn't help us much as everyone agrees exhausting all other options first, but the debate will always be over when the point of last resort has been reached.

Bad thing. Sometimes necessary.

De Facto #1 issue. AKA war on Terror. Bin Laden and Omar are in need of death.

Oh...paranioa. Fantasy. I get it.

VirileVagabond is absolutely correct in his analysis that the consequences of government-sponsored assassinations of foreign leaders must be carefully examined before being carried out. The reality is that in some cases, government-sponsored assassinations can benefit society and save lives. Would anyone honestly have objected if Roosevelt had approved a covert plan to assassinate Hitler in 1938? Millions of lives would've been saved. Of course, such an action was not militarily viable in those days, but you catch my drift. I do believe that if the disposal of one man would preserve the lives of many, then government-sponsored assassinations should be an option.

While there are some serious questions that need to be asked concerning the viability of state sovereignty, government sponsored assassinations may be used in cases where it has been carefully determined that for the sake of international security, a certain leader needs to be taken out. In cases when a nation is at war or when a leader illegitimately uses power at the cost of international law, these means may be utilized to take care of the problem. It is an unfortunate reality, but many times, this is the best way to care of a problem. Probably Iraq would not so much of a problem if we had simply taken out Saddam, it certainly would have been less difficult and less costly than occuping the entire country.

What, is the government being run by Al Capone all of a sudden? I guess the administration has decided that diplomacy is obsolete in the New World Order. Even Reagan (may he burn in hell) wasn't this radical.

Its funny hearing from the left how "...they violate our core principales od innocent until proven guilty". When will people understand that the rights and freedoms in the constitution apply only the the people of the United States? If you are not an American citizen, you do not get treated the same as someone who is an American. GSA saves money and possible lives. I ask the leftie's this: Would you not support the United States killing of Hitler in 1936?

In many cases these are necessary and justified.

go for it get rid of those who want to do us harm

Did government sponsored assasinations ever really end? We killed Pablo Escobar in the 1990's. It is on paper that this country will not particpate or sponsor assasinations on foreign soil, but is this paper worth anything? This policy may save millions of lives, but at what cost. Things weren't made any better in Colombia with the killing of Escobar. The situation in Zaire did not get any better with the murder of Patrice Lumumba. It depends on the country I suppose and how they feel about U.S interests their.

Do I mind if a Marine sniper kills a South American drug dealer? Not only no, but hell no. It's all about the American way of life. As far as I'm concerned, take out Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, and any other threat to America and our freedom.

If it saves lives, time and money how could it be wrong?

Kill them all....definitely more important than gay rights, for example......

Just one, please. He who did not get into office by popular vote, but was instead placed there by people who were mostly selected by political cronies, including his own father. He is destroying his country's infrastructure and shouting for an unnecessary war, all for his own self-glorification. His monogram can be used to indicate Greedy War-mongering (and) Bitter. If you see this man, run and alert the FBI.

Govenment sponsored assasinations were ended for good reasons. One they violated our core principals of innocent until proven guilty. Unless we are in a declared war with a uniformed enemy, then we are trying to apprehend people for criminal trial; after all didn't Bush say we were after justice. Two there are no checks on this so it could be employed against anyone- be it a foreigner or an American citizen