taboo

In my occasional visits to Daily Kos, I notice that one of the things that will get a comment troll rated faster than anything is advocacy of assassinating George Bush. Given the rhetoric many on the left have towards Bush, citing the huge numbers of deaths he is responsible for, citing his advocacy of torture and his dismantling of Constitutional rights, why NOT discuss assassination as a solution? If someone is that much of a threat to world stability and to American Democracy, shouldn't assassination be considered as a political tool?

Let me be clear: I do not advocate assassination. Advocacy of said action is not the purpose of this diary. Rather I am questioning the taboo that has been placed on the topic. Now let me go into why...

Assassination has always been a political tool, for better or worse. In ancient Rome, although the rights of citizens were gradually eroded by the rising strength of the military and the supreme dictator (what they called the Augustus and we call Emperor), one consistent check and balance to the power of that dictator was the fear of assassination. If the situation got too bad, either soldiers or Senators or both would resort to assassination. Some if the worst Emperors (Gaius Caligula, Nero, Elegabalus...) were removed though assassination. Some of the best Emperors rose to power in the wake of assassinations or imperial suicides under the threat of assassination (Vespasian, and the so-called "5 Good Emperors").