Texsox Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Current US and International Law prohibits the assasination of foreign leaders. With current world events, including terrorism and regimes with WMD, should these laws be repealed and foreign leaders be targeted for assasinations? Rex Kickass has said no, they should never be targeted. W & O believes yes they should, but as a last resort. Please follow the following post order. Rex Opening W & O Opening Rex asks question W & O replies to Question Rex rebuts W & O asks question Rex replies W&O rebuts W & O asks question Rex replies W & O rebuts Rex asks question W & O replies to Question Rex rebuts W&O closes Rex closes any questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Every day when I wake up, I thank God that I live in America. I live in a country that has a rich tradition since its beginnings of respecting human rights and respecting freedom. Our country has had its issues with it, in the past, but on the whole has found itself with more good on its side than bad. Part of the reasoning is a core belief that all people are created equal and deserve equal treatment. As such, our country does not advocate the assassination of anyone. Period. Why? Because we believe in the rule of law, and the idea of assasinating someone intentionally is contrary to the nature of justice itself. If we believe that a foreign leader is guilty of crimes against humanity, we do have a duty as a free people to work to bring that leader to justice. The act of doing so is a difficult one, a difficult balancing act between protecting the lives of our own citizenry with protecting the greater good of other people who may be unable to act on their own behalf. Simply "taking out" a foreign leader throws that balance completely away. It throws away the right that nations have to self-determination. If that leader does not agree with our interests, but is otherwise not a harm to our national security, what right do we have as a country to take away their nation's right to determine their own leadership? The answer is we don't. If that leader is a dictator and ruling his people with an iron fist, what right do we have to "take him out" without allowing the leader to be accountable to his own people for the sins he has committed? The answer is we don't. And the why is simple. We fight for a world where people can be free. And that includes being free from the worry of a government killing anyone in cold blood without due process or a system of justice. If, to acheive these goals, we violate the spirit of these goals - we acheive nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 In a perfect world, all countries would get their citizens together every few years or so and come to an agreement on who the best person would be to lead their people for awhile. If they made a bad choice, c'est la vie, we'll just pick someone new next time. Also in this utopian example, those selected leaders would at least try their best to act in the best interests of those he represented, and only in the interests of those he represents. However, as any 1st grader could certainly tell you, this ain't a perfect world. And as we must live and deal with reality, and not what should be, that unfortunately includes handling situations in which people who would think nothing of laying waste to groups of people based on race, religion, economic standing, etc., find a way to obtain enough power/resources in order to do just that. Now, while I'm not advocating butting in to another country's business anytime some slightly off-center loony gains command of a nation, I do argue that there are certain situations where, as a last resort, the U.S.A.(or other nation) needs to be "pro-active" in the spirit of the best interests of the world as a whole. I reiterate, assassinations of foreign leaders should be a very rare thing, and should only be used when all other methods have been exhausted. Sometimes, sadly, there is no other choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I always understood the idea of keeping all options open, but it seems to me that responsible countries never regard this as a viable option. In fact, it seems to be the option of the people we're currently fighting against. Mr Wong, what makes it acceptable to kill a foreign leader? What is the last resort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) I always understood the idea of keeping all options open, but it seems to me that responsible countries never regard this as a viable option. In fact, it seems to be the option of the people we're currently fighting against. Mr Wong, what makes it acceptable to kill a foreign leader? What is the last resort? The last resort, good sir Kickass, comes at the point in which negotiation, economic sanctions, and attempts at removal have not worked or swayed a particular leader from committing acts deemed unacceptable by the world community. For example, should Kim Jong II make a direct threat of nuclear attack on another country, or if we should find evidence of him slaughtering thousands of members of a particular group, then the first step is negotiation, then economic pressure, etc. If those should prove ineffective, then the next step is removal, perhaps Saddam Hussein-style. If that doesn't work, unfortunately, we are then at the last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 From the scenario you've painted, if the options don't work. We've lost. If an invasion fails, it's alright to assasinate the leader? Chances are if we invade a leader's country that any real threat would have already been fulfilled before we have the chance to "take him out." Further, if we did - it doesn't make the problem solved. "Taking him out" doesn't take the machinery away. One man governments aren't that common. North Korea survived Kim Il Sung's passing. And very little changed regarding the threat they posed. If Hugo Chavez were "taken out," it would only reinforce the legitimacy of his place - especially in situations where the leader was democratically elected to begin with and fairly popular. The only way that can even work is if the government is fully overthrown. And if we're a nation that believes in human rights and the idea of self-determination, we shouldn't believe in violent overthrows of foreign governments solely to bring one person to "justice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts