How do you define assassination?

[Robb]

I've given, and been given, grief about this in the last few days, so let's air this out a touch so we're at least agreeing on language.

How do you define "assassination?" Under what circumstances can it occur, and when is a targeted killing not an assassination? Ever? How "targeted" must a killing be to earn the label?

[LiberalArkie]

1. Silly person - Assassination is what the other guys do.

[no limit]

2. Killing Osama was an assassination

The president has pretty much admitted the goal was to kill and no capture Osama. If that's not an assassination then I don't know what is.

[nonperson]

5. Osama killing 3,000 people on 9/11 was an assassination

Killing Osama was assassination prevention.

[no limit]

9. When did simple facts become so controversial?

The simple fact in this case is that this was an assassination. You can justify it anyway you want, that's fine. But you can't change the meaning of what we did because you think that meaning is inconvenient.

[CBGLuthier]

24. Facts are controversial because of the use of spin

For instance, those who insist we all call it assassination have an agenda.

And TRUTH in FACTS is not it.

The agenda they follow is america sucks because we don't do things the way they want them to in their cotton candy fucking minds.

That, is why FACTS, are controversial.

[no limit]

26. What would you call it? Targeted killing?

Wanna explain the difference to me?

[Cali_Democrat]

12. I always understood assassination to be the deliberate killing of a politically prominent person

I'm not sure if the 9/11 attacks qualify as an assassination, but it does qualify as mass murder and terrorism on a wide scale IMO.

So if the US government's intention was to kill Bin Laden, that would qualify as assassination because he is a politically prominent person.

[EFerrari]

21. Imo, it has more to do with killing a leader than with politics.

I don't have my OED here to look, though.

[gratuitous]

13. Yikes! Really?

You'd think that would be the sort of thing mentioned by the FBI on its wanted poster for bin Laden. But it's not. I wonder why? Well, I'm sure a court of law, under constitutional rules of due process, evidence and procedure can sort this all . . .

Never mind.

But now that we're involved in pre-crime prevention, I wonder if anyone else is in line for "assassination prevention" by our faultless overlords, where mistakes are almost never made.

[nonperson]

14. Really, you people

You sound as if you'd bring the bastard back to life if you had the ability.

Nice talking points for the likes of Boner and Company too. Great job, defending bin Laden and Republican nutcases.

No wonder this country is so fucked up.

[EFerrari]

19. Grown ups deal with their choices. That has nothing to do with

bringing OBL back to life or defending him.

You want to celebrate an assassination without calling it an assassination.

[nonperson]

27. I don't care what you call it or what you think I call it

Assassination. Murder. Extra-judicial extermination. Whatever.

Bin Laden is DEAD. That's good enough for me. If you call that a celebration then let's party.

[no limit]

28. So who do you think we shouldn't kill without trial?

Where would you draw the line?

[nonperson]

29. I'd draw one line at people who don't commit mass murder

And continue planning to do more of the same. Bin Laden decided he wanted to do harm to his enemies and he accomplished his goal. He should have been expecting a bullet in the head since before those planes hit the WTC. And please don't tell me America created him. I know the role our government played in creating bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollahs in Iran, and myriad other despots and thugs and I believe those responsible should be held accountable for their roles including those dead bastards like Reagan the Republican Party continue to deify.

[nonperson]

30. If that no good incompetent son of a bitch Bush had killed bin Laden

The Republicans would have carved his fucking face on Mt. Rushmore. OUR president gets the job done and Democrats can't wait to drag him down. This is why the Republican Party is able to do anything they like with impunity.

[no limit]

32. So Gaddafi you're cool with killing I assume. What about Kim Jong Il?

All kinds of people at Gitmo that I'm sure the government says are evil mass murderers. Bullet in the head with no trial for them as well?

[nonperson]

33. What you assume

Is your problem.

Why didn't you include Bush and Cheney?

[no limit]

34. What does Bush and Cheney have to do with this?

Should we put a bullet in the heads of prisoners at Gitmo that the government says are mass murderers?

[nonperson]

35. You are a blatant ass-umptionist

If I have to explain what Bush and Cheney have to do with this you obviously aren't worth wasting my time on.

TERRORISTS WHO ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING UNTOLD THOUSANDS in comparison to people who are being held illegally without proof of harming anyone. This is your idea of logic? Are you trying to use your obviously superior mind to outwit me? LOLOLOL

Please. Don't waste your time or mine.

[no limit]

36. lol, jesus. You are saying we shouldn't put a bullet in the head of gitmo detainees because...

they are being held illegally without proof of harming anyone (this is the case for every single detainee at Gitmo?).

What proof do you have that Bin Laden is behind 9/11? Keep in mind that if you have to brush this question off in a dumb sarcastic way that means you have an answer. Therefore provide the answer along with your dumb sarcastic reply. Otherwise I will assume you don't have an answer to this question.

And people are being held illegally at Gitmo without any proof of ever harming anyone? That sounds awful, if only our commander in chief could do something about that.

[nonperson]

38. So you ass-ume

That bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11? And President Obama had that Seals team kill a nice innocent old man, right?

You are pitiful. 9/11 Truther much?

[no limit]

39. All I asked you was what evidance is there that Osama was behind 9/11. Why wouldn't you answer this?

At how absolutely insane you find that question to be I'm sure the answer would be very simple for you to provide, and as a result I can't wait for you to give it to me. The fact the FBI has said there was never any direct evidance behind Osama's involvement I always found a bit odd. But here you are, some random guy (or gal) on DU, that has an answer the FBI was never able to provide, and again, I can't wait for it.

Once you give it to me I'll be sure to forward the evidance to the FBI on your behalf as well, I'm sure it will help them out alot. Thanks in advance.

[nonperson]

45. And I'd like to ask you for evidence that Osama wasn't behind 9/11

It's accepted world-wide that he was. Please share your evidence that he wasn't.

Ridiculous. You're just simply ridiculous.

Prove the sky is blue.

[no limit]

47. I'd also like Glenn Beck to provide evidance that he didn't murder a women in 1991

since he won't provide that evidance he must be guilty? Right?

You might want to move to Iran, I think that's the legal system they have there.

Your lack of tyrannic reasoning in this case is simply unbelievable. You admit you have no evidance that Osama was in anyway involved in 9/11 yet you think killing him without any kind of due process is perfectly acceptable because the government says it's acceptable.

[nonperson]

48. Move to Iran?

That's the kind of thing right wing dickheads usually say.

If the shoe fits.

[no limit]

50. Again, the name calling doesnt make up for the fact that your idea of a justice system...

...is that the accused must provide evidance that they aren't guilty.

If you were around in the 1700s my guess is you would have figured out who was a witch and who wasn't by throwing them off the cliff and seeing if they would fly.

[nonperson]

51. But I am a witch and I can fly

Prove I can't.

[no limit]

52. I guess we'll just have to leave it here. Have a nice day

[nonperson]

53. You too.

And please tell your friend Osama I said I'm still glad he's dead.

[nonperson]

57. The trove of information is beginning to come out

You don't have to forward evidence to the FBI or anyone else. They have it already and more is being released every day.

Here's the most recent information in answer to your question. More to come, I'm sure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden

Officials: Bin Laden eyed small cities as targets

"By KIMBERLY DOZIER, AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier, Ap Intelligence Writer – 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Though hunted and in hiding, Osama bin Laden remained the driving force behind every recent al-Qaida terror plot, U.S. officials say, citing his private journal and other documents recovered in last week's raid.

Until Navy SEALs killed him a week ago, bin Laden dispensed chilling advice to the leaders of al-Qaida groups from Yemen to London: Hit Los Angeles, not just New York, he wrote. Target trains as well as planes. If possible, strike on significant dates, such as the Fourth of July and the upcoming 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Above all, he urged, kill more Americans in a single attack, to drive them from the Arab world."

Read the rest at the link. Or continue to deny it exists.

[LanternWaste]

43. Because people disagree with you...

"No wonder this country is so fucked up..."

Because people disagree with you. I cannot imagine a more effective and efficient way to portend the end of America as we know it than to disagree with you...

Or (and I find this a bit more probable...), you're simply being rather over-dramatic-- reacting badly to assumptions made about you, yet just as quickly making assumptions about other. Maybe the adage, "we set higher standards for others than we set for ourselves" is not entirely outdated... :shrug:

[nonperson]

46. Not becuase you disagree with me

It's because you disagree with a president who actually got the son of a bitch while you allow and actually aid right wing morons of every stripe, teabaggers and assorted other dickheads to bash OUR guy while they had eight years of an incompetent, corrupt home grown terrorist like Bush (and Cheney) AND THEY SUPPORTED THEM TO THE HILT.

No wonder Democrats are so ineffective at implementing their agenda. Here in New Jersey we have Bush in a fat suit telling the state we're broke while literally throwing away money by the BILLIONS on race tracks, casinos, oh yeah, and XANADU, a shopping mall and entertainment complex that is now being taken over by one of the richest private families in North America WHILE GETTING A TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR TAX BREAK FOR DOING SO!

That's an example of how Republicans stick together and stick it to us. AND THEY WANT TO RUN CHRISTIE FOR PRESIDENT. AND HE'LL PROBABLY WIN BECAUSE THERE ARE ENOUGH REPUBLICANS WHO WILL VOTE FOR HIM JUST BECAUSE HE'S ON THE TICKET WITH AN "R" AFTER HIS NAME WHILE YOU PEOPLE CRITICIZE PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR RIDDING THE WORLD OF OSAMA BIN LADEN!

Yes. No wonder the world is so fucked up. You people can't win because you can't even get on the same fucking page no less show up at the voting booth.

[NoGOPZone]

54. 'You people'? You don't like us?

Participation is voluntary, you know.

[midnight]

3. Sometimes, as in the case of Don Siegelman they completely lie and write

untrue things about you, and steal your job, family, and use assassins friends in the court systems to oil the gears of "assassination". I suppose one could defined "assassination" a situational act intended to kill all things of this persons life...

[Hosnon]

4. Politically motivated killing.

And like any other killing, assassinations can be justified.

[leveymg]

6. "Targeted killing" is like "enhanced interrogation" is like "collateral damage" Weenie words

that are intended to sound impressively impartial and sophisticated, in a stuffy, bureaucratic way.

[leftstreet]

22. +1

"extra judical" has to be one of my fav newspeaks

:puke:

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. I spell it Dr. David Kelly

That was a professional hit done by the West.

[DainBramaged]

8. You define it by the number of lives you save........

[TransitJohn]

10. With a dictionary.

Words have meaning.

[hack89]

11. Here is the official US Army definition

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/Use%20of%20Force/October%202002/Parks_final.pdf

Here is the summary.

Summary. Assassination constitutes an act of murder that is prohibited by international law and Executive Order 12333. The purpose of Executive Order 1233 and its predecessors was
to preclude unilateral actions by individual agents or agencies against selected foreign public
officials, and to establish beyond any doubt that the United States does not condone assassination
as an instrument of national policy. Its intent was not to limit lawful self defense options against
legitimate threats to the national security of the United States or individual U.S. citizens. Acting
consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, a decision by the President to employ
clandestine, low visibility or overt military force would not constitute assassination if U.S.
military forces were employed against the combatant forces of another nation, a guerrilla force,
or a terrorist or other organization whose actions pose a threat to the security of the United
States.

[Recursion]

15. Assassinations are done by people outside of an order of battle

That is, there's a clandestine-ness about it that exceeds tactical concealment.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. The dictionary defines assassination. We don't have to.

This idea that we are improvising the word's meaning is absurd. The word has a defined meaning.

[Robb]

17. My pocket Oxford says "kill for political or religious motives."

...That cover it? Seems overbroad to me.

[quinnox]

18. assassinate

to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack

While this definition seems to fit the OBL case, I don't think its the right term.

When I hear the word it means to me a political leader or prominent person killed, either with an individual or a small group involved, and also not having government backing behind it. And these targets assassinated are not criminals or terrorists that come to mind when I hear the word. When I hear someone was assassinated, I think of them as an innocent person, not a wanted criminal. Since OBL was a worldwide terrorist and criminal, I don't think assassinate works very well. In this case "brought to justice" or something like that works much better.

[SoCalDem]

20. Killing of a prominent person that you do not personally know n/t

[hlthe2b]

23. I consider assasination to be the killing without prior trial/conviction

of a significant public figure, usually a political leader. Thus, OBL meets the definition. What I have not seen well defined are the legal parameters around it. While my kneejerk thought would be it would always be an illegal act, I honestly don't see how we would have viewed it so during a time of war. For instance, can anyone imagine the legality would have been questioned had one of several attempts on Hitler been successful? A further complication is when the target of assassination operates outside any recognized government and without the explicit support of any given country and is thus, not seemingly subject to international conventions or treaties. So, while I have read Greenwald and am conflicted by his stance on the OBL killing, I'm not quite prepared to go with his interpretation as to where the line is drawn.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The Mafia and/or the CIA call them "necessary".

[WinkyDink]

31. I don't make up definitions, just as I don't make up math formulae. I use the dictionary.

[JoePhilly]

37. OBL decalred war on us.

Given that, he died in the war he wanted.

Assassinations generally take place outside of war.

Military leaders get killed in any war.

[no limit]

40. Does that only apply to this one, never ending war?

And does that mean we have free reign to go in to any country and kill anyone we deem to be part of that war?

[BzaDem]

41. It's not so much whether "we deem." It's whether it is accurate. Of course, the decision will always

be up to our President/military (rather than some international court judge), but whether or not it is legal turns on whether or not the person we kill is in fact a combatant against our country. Of course, a self-declared combatant who has declared war on us and is a commander of an organization that has declared war on us is obviously a combatant.

[no limit]

44. Exactly, like you said. The president gets to decide who is a combatant and go and kill them

and you are okay with that?

[JoePhilly]

55. Who said go kill "anyone"??

Look, you feel free to claim that OBL was just like ANYONE.

See how far that gets you.

[Iggo]

42. I don't have a problem with the word assassination.

I remember getting into a little discussion maybe last year about my brief time as a repo-man.

People kept telling me I wasn't stealing cars and I was saying that yes, I was, I was just stealing cars for the good guys.

I don't have a problem with the word "stealing" for what I did.

And I don't have a problem with the word "assassination" for what our government did.

[nonperson]

49. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

There is "no limit" to the ignorance and outright rush to failure of some supposed Democrats here. President Obama accomplishes a mission that the son of a bush and cheney couldn't get done in their entire two terms and people here are running to the aid of the right wing lunatics and teabaggers, birthers and whatever other idiots, Boner and the Republicans whose stated and sworn goal is to bring this president down.

Unbelievable. We can't even win when we win.

[tiny elvis]

56. killing a person with great political power by anyone for any reason

need not be a public official
under my definition your question becomes
how much political power is great?