Why NOT Discuss Assassination?

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").

Few people would argue that assassination of Hitler at key moments in the rise of the Nazis in Germany could have saved the world much bloodshed. And certainly the allies were very interested in assassination of Hitler (though there are theories that we DIDN'T want him assassinated because he was such a lame strategic military leader...). The Czechs have even provided us with a word for assassination by dumping out a window (defenestration). Our nation has resorted to assassination when it considered it expedient, and heaven knows that the right wing in America today frequently advocates assassination of foreign leaders, Supreme Court Justices, etc.

Many on the left view Bush as a threat to world security and to American democracy. If he is THAT much of a threat to our freedom and life and limb, then why NOT consider assassination? I personally think it is not a good idea, but why has it become taboo? If he opened up "detention camps" for all Muslim Americans, would that taboo be lifted? If he opened up "work camps" for all Muslim Americans, would that taboo be lifted? How about if he advocated the removal by any means necessary of all Muslim Americans...would the taboo be lifted?

Right wing nuts like Ann Coulter advocate violence and terrorism at the drop of a hat. I don't advocate we mimic her simple-minded fear and hate mongering. But where DO we draw the line? When DOES assassination become a sound political tool? Many would say that someone like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. are clear examples of people who perhaps should have been assassinated for the greater good. It is easy to imagine that history could have been better if someone had taken them out, though I could certainly argue why it might not have been. What would Bush and Cheney have to do before assassination would be openly discussed among the left as a necessary step towards preserving our Democracy?

And, since I notice some libertarians joining us, what are their thoughts? What degree of a threat of dictatorship and loss of civil liberties would it take for a libertarian to consider assassination as a political tool?

Yes...I am being deliberately provocative here. Discuss!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |