assassination of a dictator

S

swatiraohnlu

Swati Rao
Assassination can be defined as the targeted killing of an individual for political reasons in peacetime. It can be undertaken by individual citizens, or by the agents of another state, but in either case it takes place without any legal process. Assassinating a dictator is often considered in the context of Hitler and Stalin, or of secret CIA action against foreign leaders such as Fidel Castro in the Cold War period (after this became public knowledge in the mid-1970s US Presidents have banned the use of assassination by Executive Order).

Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?
 
No assasination of any kind is not allowed as per legal law..
Any person should have right to go through legal process. If court find him guilty for exception of exception cases.. He should be killed.
 
* Illegitimate tyrants can be assassinated if it's the only way to freedom If a tyrant comes to power by illegitimate, undemocratic means and directly suppresses, harms, and kills the citizens of a state, that tyrant loses all legitimacy to the continued occupation of office. If it is impossible to depose the leader by more subtle means of opposition and democratic voting, the only route to freedom may be assassination. In such cases, assassination is certainly justifiable.

* Tyrants directly jeopardizing societal welfare can be assassinated If a tyrant directly contravenes societal welfare, it can be justified to assassinate him or her.

* Dictators often uphold regimes alone; assassinating them will end the regime. Dictatorial systems are highly personal, so removing the driving force behind such a regime will result in its collapse, allowing a more popular and liberal government to replace it.
 
* Killing dictators will not cause the fall of a regime. Killing one individual will achieve nothing; dictators are part of a wider ruling elite from which someone sharing the same autocratic values will emerge to take their place. This successor is likely to use the assassination as the excuse for further repression.

* Failed assassination attempts can help strengthen a tyrant. If an attempt is made on the life of a tyrant, one result is that the tyrant will become more paranoid and take measures to strengthen his or her grip on power. Another result is that supporters of the tyrant and fence-straddlers may come out in support and unity behind their leader. This would leave a people worse off as far as deposing their tyrant. Assassination attempts, therefore, entail great risks of back-firing.
 
* Assassination can counter-productively rally citizens around a regime. Assassination is likely to be counter-productive, rallying popular feeling around a repressive regime as external enemies or internal minorities are blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the act. This is even more likely to result from an unsuccessful assassination. Furthermore an alternative now exists for bringing dictators to justice. Regime change has been shown to be possible in a number of countries and former dictators are being held to account for their actions. The Special UN Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has been able to put Slobodan Milosevic on trial, and Saddam Hussein is facing justice in Iraq. The International Criminal Court now provides a permanent forum for such action to be taken, and is itself a deterrent to would-be tyrants in the future.

* To liberalize a regime, there are better ways than assassination. Alternatives such as constructive engagement or economic sanctions are preferable and much more likely to result in eventual liberalisation of the regime, albeit slowly. The examples of Eastern Europe in 1989 and Yugoslavia in 2000 show that even in apparently hopeless cases, change can come through popular action, often quickly and without great violence. Cambodia in 1979, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 all saw dictatorships quickly overthrown by external forces.
 
* The idea that assassinations can prevent evils is questionable. The argument that much evil can be prevented by such action is highly questionable. The figurehead of an evil government is not necessarily the lynchpin that holds it together. Thus, if Hitler had been assassinated, it is pure conjecture that the Nazis would have acted any differently to how they did act.

* Moral absolutes exist; murder can never be justified. If we assume the role of executioner without the backing of law we are sinking down to the level of the dictators. Any new government founded upon such an arbitrary act will lack moral legitimacy, undermining its popular support and making its failure likely. Consider the long civil war in Rome after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C, or the failure of the British Commonwealth after the execution of Charles I in 1649.
 
* Legitimizing assassination cheapens the value of life. By assuming the power to take life arbitrarily, even in an apparently good cause, we cheapen the value of life itself. Many terrorists, criminals, or indeed dictators could and have claimed similar legitimacy for their violent actions. Only if we ourselves respect human rights absolutely, will our promotion of these values seem valid to others. States that use assassination as a political weapon will soon find that others seek to turn it against them.

* Even tyrants have a right to life, which assassinations violate The right to life is inviolable. It is so important to preserve that we even extend it to tyrants.
 
* Measures can reduce risk of collateral damage from assassinations Assassinations should not have heavy, or any, collateral damage. But, it is important to realize that collateral damage can be limited through reasonable steps taken by a government. As long as these steps are taken, assassination can remain an option.

* Mistakes and collateral damage from assassinations are worth it Inevitably there will be collateral damage involved in any assassination policy. This need not prevent assassination attempts, as long as it is determined that it is "worth it". If an assassination could, for instance, save tens of thousands of lives, it may be tolerable for ten people to die as collateral damage.
 
I know this is totally going to sound like a terrible suggestion, but from a point of perspective, may I suggest you read through Mein Kampf?

No, I do not advocate Nazism in any way shape or form. Hitler does though lay out his opinion on why a dictatorship is the superior form of government.
 
Again, I do not advocate Nazism. I just want to make that clear. The book is full of hate and vitriol and is basically the rantings of a very evil person, but one that did have some pretty clear ideas on dictatorship.
 
Ok, my thoughts are that you cannot justify one person as being wrong from not having the complete and clear facts regarding the same. The facts can be brought out only by neutral quizzing(international or national courts). Assassination will completely erase such things and the truth may never come out.
 
If an attempt is made on the life of a tyrant, one result is that the tyrant will become more paranoid and take measures to strengthen his or her grip on power. Another result is that supporters of the tyrant and fence-straddlers may come out in support and unity behind their leader. This would leave a people worse off as far as deposing their tyrant. Assassination attempts, therefore, entail great risks of back-firing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top