so whats the concensus on pro assassination Democrats?

[tinanator]

I find them rather undemocratic somehow. How do you feel about it?

[truthspeaker]

1. it wouldn't do any good. Cheney's in charge anyway.

Is that the kind of assassination you were talking about?

[tinanator]

2. no, of course not

Not only because Im agin it, but because THAT would be a violation of the rules. The fact is some posters have expressed support for Israeli assassinations (if that is what a helicopter missile attack on relatively defenseless opposition leadership can be called) and in light of the numerous historical tragedies of assassinated Democratic Presidents and candidates, MLK and Malcolm, as well as more contemporary attempts on Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney, not to mention prohibitions on such actions, how do you feel about joining the pro assassination bandwagon?

[MAlibdem]

59. None of the people you mentioned

Ever sent teenagers to kill women and children.

[Jim Sagle]

3. They RAWWWWWWWWWKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tinanator]

5. I feel like a Timex watch at a baseball game

Two balls, two strikes.

[Quetzal]

4. Assasinations of International Leaders are

a violation of international law. Period.

Put those that are violaters of it on trial.

[ShaneGR]

25. A leader of Hamas is not an international leader

By definition, being the leader of Hamas makes one a terrorist. Heck, their goal is the destruction of Israel.

[Q]

6. In America...even 'suspected' criminals...

...have the right to due process. We have these laws and the Bill of Rights in order to protect the guilty AND the innocent from government/judical tyranny. It's the due process laws that prevents 'our' government from rounding up protesters and those who dissent and making them political prisoners as they did/do in Russia and China.

- Labeling someone a 'suspect' and then assassinating them without any kind of a trial is the despots answer to 'justice'.

[truthspeaker]

7. I don't necessarily have a problem with assassinating Hamas military

leaders; they're a legitimate military target. Political leaders are another story. But in practice, the Israelis seem to wait until they are surrounded by Palestinian civilians before they launch missiles. I also don't think it's terribly effective; kill one and another will take his place.

[MAlibdem]

63. It seems more that

The Hamas military intentionally surrounds themselves with children so Israel commits collateral damage.

Notice that the recent assasination of Rantassi killed no civilians. The Israelis said* they had to wait because Rantassi had been surrounding himself with children.



*Not the most independent source, I know. But I've been to Israel, met people there. They hate this conflict and they take very seriously being careful not to hurt innocents.

[robcon]

8. First, admit that Israel and Hamas are at war.

It's clear from Hamas's statements and actions that they wish to overthrow the Israeli government, and kill as many Jews as they can indiscriminately. That makes the assassinations totally valid in any 'just war' philosophy I've ever heard of.

Or do some DUers believe that Poland should have tried to 'arrest' Hitler, and not defended itself against the German army, when he invaded in 1939?

[truthspeaker]

13. Good point.

BTW, the same applies to the hypothetical situation of the Iraqi resistance assassinating Bremer or Negroponte. Fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[Nihil]

14. Precisely

> Or do some DUers believe that Poland should have tried to 'arrest'
> Hitler, and not defended itself against the German army, when he
> invaded in 1939?

Poland had to defend itself against the invaders who were taking over
their country and murdering their countrymen ... oh, ... I guess your
analogy has broken down a little there ...

[robcon]

18. I agree with truthspeaker, and nihil has a point.

The Americans are, precisely, the enemy of the Iraqi insurgents. A "just war" allows the opponents to kill the opposition leaders on each side, but does not allow the intentional infliction of civilian murders that the Iraq 'insurgents' are participating in.

Nihil's point is right on. "Poland had to defend itself against the invaders who were taking over their country and murdering their countrymen" My analogy is valid for precisely that reason.

[Nihil]

24. So where is the line drawn?

> but does not allow the intentional infliction of civilian murders that
> the Iraq 'insurgents' are participating in.

i.e., the line between "intentional infliction of civilian murders" and
"intentional attacks that result in civilian collateral damage"?

[IrateCitizen]

37. You're completely missing the irony!

Nihil's point is right on. "Poland had to defend itself against the invaders who were taking over their country and murdering their countrymen" My analogy is valid for precisely that reason.

The irony you are failing to see is that the state of Israel was created out of land occupied by the Palestinians for centuries. Therefore, it could be just as readily argued that it is the ISRAELIS who are the invaders, taking over their country and murdering their countrymen, especially in the occupied territories.

You do know the meaning of the word, "occupied", don't you?

From www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: oc·cu·py
Pronunciation: 'ä-ky&-"pI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -pied; -py·ing
Etymology: Middle English occupien to take possession of, occupy, modification of Middle French occuper, from Latin occupare, from ob- toward + -cupare (akin to capere to seize) -- more at OB-, HEAVE
1 : to engage the attention or energies of
2 a : to take up (a place or extent in space) <this chair is occupied> <the fireplace will occupy this corner of the room> b : to take or fill (an extent in time) <the hobby occupies all of my free time>
3 a : to take or hold possession or control of <enemy troops occupied the ridge> b : to fill or perform the functions of (an office or position)
4 : to reside in as an owner or tenant
- oc·cu·pi·er /-"pI(-&)r/ noun

See, that's the problem when you begin choosing sides in such a conflict, rather than attempting to look at the situation objectively and urge solutions aimed at stopping the continual violence. Actions on both sides (and they are equally culpable) that injure innocent civilians -- whether they be Israelis in a marketplace attacked by a suicide bomber, or Palestinians whose homes are bulldozed and fathers killed by IDF forces -- only serve to fuel the legitimate grievances on either side and allow those grievances to be captured by demagogues like Hamas and Likud.

[Vladimir]

20. By that logic

Hamas has every right to assasinate Israeli political leaders, and the question becomes on of who started the conflict. If you accept murder by one side, you have to accept murder by all sides... that's one of the main reasons why I don't agree with Israel's assasination policies (nevermind that they are counter-productive).

V

[truthspeaker]

23. I have no problem with that

A dead Sharon would be good for both sides.

[Vladimir]

27. Holy shit

well I respect and admire your consistency truthspeaker, but I must disagree with your analysis... I think such assasinations on both sides only lead to more bloodshed.

V

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Calling for the assassination of a democratically elected leader

Of a state is off the deep end.

[Blue_Chill]

32. I agree, that statement was way out of line

I'm losing hope of our party Muddle. I really am.

[truthspeaker]

42. why, because we don't worship war criminals?

Ariel Sharon is a scumbag. He triggered the current intifadeh with his provocative march onto the Temple Mount with armed guards. I don't think assassinations by either side will accomplish anything positive, but as long as the Israelis are assassinating Palestinians they have to be prepared for the consequences. Turnabout is fair play.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Death to scumbags?

Yeah, that too is over the top. As for visiting the Temple Mount, it's the right of everyone to do so. It's especially the right of Jewish people to visit the holiest site in Judaism. And having guards is something that leaders typically have.

[truthspeaker]

44. I'm just saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. But it is not the same thing

To kill a terrorist who is plotting the murder of women and children is doing civilization a favor.

[truthspeaker]

48. you just made my point for me

Sharon is a terrorist who is reponsible for the deaths of women and children. Sharon is morally equivalent to the political leaders of Hamas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Nope, Sharon is the democratically elected leader

Of the most pluralistic state in the region.

[JVS]

51. The method by which one comes to power does not excuse actions

[truthspeaker]

52. yes, he's democratically elected, but he's still a terrorist

responsible for the murder of civilians, as well as the theft of Palestinian land. He is just as evil as any Hamas leader.

Hitler was democratically elected too. His party never won a majority, but he was appointed to chancellor legally. Are you saying it would have been wrong to assassinate Hitler?

[lostnfound]

62. Along with whatever women or children happen to be nearby??

Oh, that's right, 'collateral damage' is accidental so no one can be faulted for it. Oops, sorry, you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Tactics matter in this discussion.

[tinanator]

33. no doubt Rabin feels the same

I wonder how Sharon felt about that one?

[truthspeaker]

35. I'm not calling for it or even advocating it;

I'm describing what my reaction would be if Hamas or someone else did it.

And remember, Netanyahu came to power because an Israeli citizen assassinated Rabin.

Many in Israel have publicly called for the assassination of Arafat, who is also a democratically elected leader. Where is your outrage over that? Yes, Arafat is a terrorist and a war criminal. So is Sharon.

[Blue_Chill]

50. You said it would be 'good' - that's advocating it n/t

...

[truthspeaker]

55. Semantics. Let's just say if someone kills Sharon, I'm having a party.

[MAlibdem]

60. Arafat was democratically elected...

Just like Sadaam Hussein was, right?

[RapidCreek]

56. Invading someone else's country, drawing a line around it,

moving in foreign nationals to occupy it and holding an election in which only they are allowed to vote...then declaring the person who wins that "election" a Democratically elected leader, is off the deep end.

What part of the word occupation don't you understand? You can wrap a turd in a golden wrapper chief...it's still a turd.


RC

[John_H]

9. I looooooooooooooove 'em. It's teeth droppin' Freepers I hate.

[theboss]

10. Elected officials . . . no

Political leaders.....no
Hamas leaders. . . . yes

To me, it's no different than killing Admiral Yamamoto.

[tinanator]

12. and when they off Arafat?

is that a line you wouldnt cross? Is there like a Baskin-Robbins of assassination? What was that commandment again? I know it seems to be open to considerable interpretation.

[theboss]

16. Arafat should have been killed 30 years ago

He's a gangster.

[tinanator]

17. and Bush?

forget I asked.

[theboss]

21. Are you looking to be cavity-searched by the Secret Service?

Just asking?

[tinanator]

26. are you comfortable being judge jury and executioner?

I think we could save a lot of money wasted on a phony justice system if we just had you in charge.

[theboss]

30. It's a war issue/not legal

Do you arrest Hamas?

Do you send the Israeli police to their house?

This is a paramilitary organization. You deal with them in a military fashion.

Should we have arrested Yamamato in WWII?

[tinanator]

34. and UN resolutions, where do they fit in?

Israeli policies have violated UN resolutions, treaty and truce agreements all with the same excuses that could easily be Northwoods in nature. Is that irrelevant?

[theboss]

36. What's the connection?

Israel has the right to self-defense. I don't see what violating UN treaties have to do with that.

This is why you can't discuss Israel rationally. Everything becomes a litany of Israeli sins.

[tinanator]

41. or a blanket absolution

rational discussion is possible, Im trying to do it myself. I think I know enough about the Israeli encroachment to judge the situation better than those who can only cry "strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents" as carte blanche.

[Blue_Chill]

31. In war the only folks arrested are those that surrender.

The guys with guns in a war zone aren't there to read you your rights and offer you a lawyer.

[Vladimir]

38. But he is an elected leader

so if he was killed now, would you condemn it?

V

[theboss]

47. At the moment, I think killing Arafat is a bad idea

He is nominally an elected leader. And the US has given him too much credibility over the years.

If he were to find himself on the wrong end of an attack helicopter, I would hardly shed a tear. But I think it would be a very bad policy decision.

[RapidCreek]

58. Yea well Sharon was a terrorist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html

Guess the fact that he is a "Democratically Elected Leader" of occupied land makes that ok though, right?

RC

[Vickers]

11. Kill 'em all. Let Georgie sort 'em out

j/k

The political/military distinction has been made, and I agree with that.

[Fescue4u]

15. Is that some kind of slam on Kerry??

Kerry was only a member of that organization, but didnt attend the meeting where the assasination of senators was discussed.

In fact, I think he had resigned before they got that far.

[JVS]

22. This isn't about that

[JVS]

19. I find it disturbing how quickly they are willing to run from peace

The goal should be to get back to the point where relations were in the late 90's, this kind of stuff will not help to make that happen. I'm tired of both parties' answers being mere intensification of violence.

[Blue_Chill]

29. War has ALWAYS made it open season on leaders.

The reason more leaders aren't killed is because they are more often then not extremely hard to get to. Hamas has declared war, they want Israel gone and have proven themselves willing to kill to accomplish this task. That in any reasonable persons mind is war. Thus any member or leader of that group has to know that they will be killed if possible.

[Egalitarian]

39. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

[Vladimir]

40. Welcome to DU Geia!

:hi:

[tinanator]

45. by the way this thread was meant to discuss Democrats not Sharon and Hamas

so lets try not to turn this into another I/P thread.

[theboss]

53. How do you separate the issues?

If this is not about Sharon/Hamas your, your topic is a red herring? I mean, are there really any "Pro-Assassination" Democrats? I don't think we should have a policy assassinating NATO leaders. Or any world leaders for that matter.

But in a war, I think military leaders are a legitimate target. And I think Hamas is a military organization. Therefore, it's open season.

[JVS]

54. Well there is the issue of "is it our fight?"

that can separate it quite well. There is also the issue of "Shouldn't American leaders try to urge warring factions in the world towards reconciliation rather than escalating violence?" Both of these are issues where one would discuss American policy rather than the I/P issue.

[NoPasaran]

57. The trouble with assassinating leaders

is it doesn't seem to be doing anything to bring peace any closer. So if peace is actually the goal, this seems like a poor strategy to employ.

[theboss]

61. I think Sharon sees "Winning" as the goal

I don't agree with that since I have no idea what "winning" means.

But in theory, assassination is fine in war because it does lead to winning and winning leads to peace.

[tinanator]

64. case in point JFK(ennedy)

oh, no, wait. Maybe not. Or was that just the first step to ending Vietnam? Such logic.

[NoPasaran]

66. I'm not sure it does lead to "winning"

Off the top of my head I can't think of any situations where killing an individual has really led to a victory in a war.

Now, I can think of various leaders whose assassinations made things worse, like Lincoln or Gandhi or Rabin.

You could argue that Princip's murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 touching off World War One led to the eventual victory of the Greater Serbia advocates, but only after millions more lives sacrificed and untold destruction.

On the whole, killing individual leaders doesn't seem to be a very effective way of fixing bad situations.

[tinanator]

65. How do you seperate the parties?

If Kerry and certainly some of his supporters around here sanctify Israeli policies of assassination, just how much does that differ from Republican Party beliefs? Are we united there? This is much more relevant to what I am bringing up. Just because a number of people have a hard on for Arafat and the Palestinian resistance doesnt excuse
the Democratic candidate from joining with Bob Barr, and CLEARLY the Bushcorp admin, on a policy change such as assassination.

[theboss]

67. The Republicans are the ones stealing our platform

For sixty years, Democrats were the first to defend Israel. Bush has been triangulating us on this issue. If the Republicans are coming to our viewpoint, that's a good thing.