Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

hopefully this will clear things up a bit.

i know that legal processes are important. however, i am deeply disturbed by the fact that there are people who get around the law using status, money, laywers ect ect. weatehr or not what they did was deserving of the death penalty or not, they still should be punished acordingly.

i would much rather have a legal system that couldent be bought. then have some guy going around killing people because he thinks that they are guilty.

but when it comes down to it. if i see on the news that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong were assassinated i think the world would be a sightly better place. mabey someone less insane would step up.

then kim can stop being so ronery (come on people, that one is easy)

Envy89 wrote:i would much rather have a legal system that couldent be bought. then have some guy going around killing people because he thinks that they are guilty.

but when it comes down to it. if i see on the news that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong were assassinated i think the world would be a sightly better place. mabey someone less insane would step up.

What crimes did these individuals commit that qualifies them for a death sentence? What court are they influencing so that they will not be convicted?

They are heads of state that are opposed to the US. The US doesn't like them and doesn't agree with them. So what?
Not liking someone is not reason enough to kill them. This is why concepts like Due Process exist.

Due process huh?

Yes, im sure that people in Iran get that.

"WHAT... you own a BIBLE. STONE HIM"

"WHAT... you think you might be GAY. STONE HIM"

Or like the case of Nazanin... an 18 year old girl sentenced to be hung because she tried to fight off people trying to RAPE her.

or like in, the case of another woman who was given 200 lashes and 6 months in jail for reporting that she was gang raped 14 TIMES. When she tried to appeal her case the courts DOUBLED HER SENTANCE... the men (all SEVEN of them) got prison sentences ranging from one to five years.

THAT is what due process is in Iran.

blue loki wrote:

Envy89 wrote:i would much rather have a legal system that couldent be bought. then have some guy going around killing people because he thinks that they are guilty.

but when it comes down to it. if i see on the news that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong were assassinated i think the world would be a sightly better place. mabey someone less insane would step up.

What crimes did these individuals commit that qualifies them for a death sentence? What court are they influencing so that they will not be convicted?

They are heads of state that are opposed to the US. The US doesn't like them and doesn't agree with them. So what?
Not liking someone is not reason enough to kill them. This is why concepts like Due Process exist.

A better example would've been Mugabi and his country's now-200000000% inflation rate.

And again I ask you, what crimes did the individuals that you originally named commit that qualifies them for a death sentence?

If anything, your points only stress why concepts like due process should be spread and enforced world wide.

Violence and vigilantism only offer an immediate short term solution. In the end, they only help to breed more of the same violence that they were intended to prevent.

Who are you referring to Blue Loki?

Surely not - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il.

Indeed. I'm trying to make a point.

Envy states that these two individual persons are using influence and money to avoid prosecution which would result in a sentence of death. Therefore they should be assassinated.

I put forth that they are simply heads of states with policies and societies with which the US does not agree. If we were to assassinate everyone with which we did not agree, there would be exceedingly few people left alive on the planet.

If there are specific crimes committed by these specific individuals that they are cleverly avoiding, then I apologize for not being aware of them and perhaps someone could enlighten me. But I imagine that this is largely a POV issue.

The majority of Americans could be tried an convicted of child abuse, slavery, and human rights violations simply by the fact that they purchase goods made in third-world countries.
The US government itself provided weapons to some of the countries currently accused of harboring and arming terrorists, and thus current and former officials could be convicted of aiding terrorism.
Parents throughout the world mutilate the genitalia of their newborn children in the name of health concerns, and could therefore be locked up for child abuse.

Had individuals the power to assign life and death to those they "felt" deserved it, all of the above persons and a great many more would no longer exist. There is a reason that individuals do not have the right to take the law into their own hands. Judge Dredd is fantasy, the Courts are reality.

This is not to the vengeance discussion (I don't know the comic). I am generally in agreement that vengeance is not a great thing for society. I’d make the exemption for dictators and genocidal murderers, however.

Kim Il is in charge in a country that has the largest concentration camp in the history of mankind, where families are imprisoned for three generations by what a forbear was accused of doing. The camp is so big the CIA initially missed it because its size of Rhode Island ( a state in the US) or some such. You do the crime you do the time.

Azi is in charge and a driving force in a regime that supports terrorists groups in Gaza, Beirut, and Iraq. Yea, I’d consider him a shoot on sight as a strategic move, on the order of wacking a Hitler Lite before he gets the bomb and becomes the great killer of Jews.

jfrazell wrote:Kim Il is in charge in a country that has the largest concentration camp in the history of mankind, where families are imprisoned for three generations by what a forbear was accused of doing. The camp is so big the CIA initially missed it because its size of Rhode Island ( a state in the US) or some such. You do the crime you do the time.

Since the discovery of said camp, what has been the international reaction and/or attempt at a solution?

Azi is in charge and a driving force in a regime that supports terrorists groups in Gaza, Beirut, and Iraq. Yea, I’d consider him a shoot on sight as a strategic move, on the order of wacking a Hitler Lite before he gets the bomb and becomes the great killer of Jews.

Is there solid proof that the terrorist support exists? Or is this in line with Georgie's and Tony's claims a few years ago that ended up being pure bunk. I mean sure Saddam was a bad dude, but virtually none of the public "reasons for invasion" proved to be true.

Honest questions, both.


Yes it probably is good strategically to remove both from power, I don't question that. What I do question is one's right to kill these individuals based on their individual actions without their case being heard by a board of their peers. But I guess that's a difference between justice and strategy. One concers what you have done, one by what you might do.

A solution? much of the world already embargoes North Korea. International reaction is not a good indicator of guilt or, well anything.

As to Iran.
Yes there is solid proof. A quick search - hezbullah funding sources will help you in that. However, thats more of a strategic/philosophical argument. If one bullet stops a war is it ethical? But thats a completely different thread.

This is a topic that can get way to over analyzed as it appears to have been. You start getting into the endless loop of "Well it's for the best, but it's not right to do it, but if it results in good then it's okay, etc. etc. etc." It never ends. This is just me throwing out a suggestion but perhaps this topic should be laid to rest eh?

Are we allowed to talk about the original topic at least ?

Personally I think Ahtman was right in calling Death Note juvenile, but for what it's worth there's little point in watching it if you're gonna skip that last episode, Envy. You might as well chop of the second half of American History X and call it a white power movie.

That last episode is pulling back the curtain and showing that the Wizard of Oz is really just a decrepit old guy: the glorification of Kira is empty worship, he's really a pretty pathetic figure. Near snubs him because he sees what Kira really is and is decidedly unimpressed...

and in the last episode they were kind of like hay butt-munch, you’re just a crazy serial killer with a god complex, nothing more.

...is exactly what Kira is. The main idea of Death Note is that it is bad to kill criminals willy-nilly.

THAT is what due process is in Iran.

I get why that upsets you, and I agree it's monstrous. But complaining that people escape the justice system, and complaining about what's accepted are two different things .

i will aggree that kira went overboard with the whole killing thing.

and rewatching a few of the eariler episodes. i aggree with the crazy serial killing with a god complex as well.



but no matter how i look at it. i dont see it as wrong to 86 a mass murder who escaped justice. or a serial rapist who got a slap on the wrist and let go due to some lhoop hole his laywers found.

Griffu wrote:But complaining that people escape the justice system, and complaining about what's accepted are two different things .

Well this thread is kind of about both. It's about criminals that escape the justice system and whether or not it's acceptable to kill them.

jfrazell wrote:A solution? much of the world already embargoes North Korea. International reaction is not a good indicator of guilt or, well anything.

As to Iran.
Yes there is solid proof. A quick search - hezbullah funding sources will help you in that. However, thats more of a strategic/philosophical argument. If one bullet stops a war is it ethical? But thats a completely different thread.

You are aware Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not much more then the mouthpiece for the Iranian government, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran

Unlike many other countries, in Iran the president does not have control over foreign policy, the armed forces, nuclear policy, or the main economic policies of the Iranian state, which are under the control of the Supreme Leader.


It's much easier for one bullet to start a war then prevent one, and indeed the one of the biggest meatgrinders of all time took one bullet to start. reasonable arguements can be made for this one murder too have brought two wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand

I cannot find reference to any point in time where an assasination actually prevented a war. As a point of fact assasination is more likely to be a cause of war then a reason not to fight the war.

Why would you. There was no war.

Iran-gotcha. Two bullets required then? Beats the coming bombing campaign.

In all fairness though, how many covert assassinations are you privy to? They won't always be high profile and they won't always be shootings, or appear to be.

jfrazell wrote:Why would you. There was no war.

Iran-gotcha. Two bullets required then? Beats the coming bombing campaign.


First, give me a single successful example of that form of foreign policy. Just once where killing
a leader or leadership group saved lives. I just gave you an example of a single bullet that caused a war.
Rawanda is another great example of an assasination that caused a war.
Please give me an example of an assasination that prevented a war. If such a thing exists you should be able to find
it pretty quickly.

I'm willing to bet you can't, because those examples don't exist. The reason that it isn't used by any government as
policy is that it is almost always going to generate unexpected results. As annoying as Amajenod
(or however it's spelled) is he's basically harmless. What is important to note is that he is a
populist democratically elected leader, as frightening as that is given his status as an ignorant
dolt, so killing him could inspire someone far worse (one of the key reasons for not using
assassination of national leaders). The other reason is of course a preservation reason... doing or
being perceived as doing any such attack will immediately legitimize retaliation.

Coming bombing campaign? Only if your government wants to find out how really overextended
it can get. One of the surest ways to create an economic mess of a nation historically is a series
of foreign adventures that tie up all resources. Just ask the English. I wonder sometimes just how
much Americans pay attention to their government's finances. Even ignoring that Iran has some big friends who
are unlikely to accept such an intervention.

You're assuming we're the ones doing the bombing. Israel has stated that they will not permit Iran to get the bomb. Israel has been rattling sabers for some time and I do believe they mean it (I think the words "never again" are wringing in their ears). That’s what happens when you daily say you’re going to wipe out an entire people-eventually they take you at your word.

Countries have used selective assassination in the past. Its just really difficult to pull off. I will note the selective assassination of close relatives of Khadaffi worked wonders (occurring through a bombing raid but you do what can) in stopping terrorism in the 80s. Al Qaeda assassinated the Northern Alliance's leader days before 9/11 to break them up and try to keep them from being a tool for the inevitable counterstroke. Bhutto was just assassinated and that worked well for those opposed to her cause.

efarrer wrote:First, give me a single successful example of that form of foreign policy.

How would we know such a thing, if it did happen? I'm not saying it does, but if it indeed does, how would we know? The intelligence field keeps its secrets, and most of those targeted assassinations would probably never make the news or appear as an assassination in the first place.

Not only that, but the ability to prove it would also probably mean breaking a gak ton of national security regulations and laws, including treason. If I know the CIA/KGB/MI6 "accidented" someone, wouldn't it be foolish to reveal that?

And I know it isn't the KGB anymore, I just don't remember what it is now.

Ahtman wrote:

efarrer wrote:First, give me a single successful example of that form of foreign policy.

How would we know such a thing, if it did happen? I'm not saying it does, but if it indeed does, how would we know? The intelligence field keeps its secrets, and most of those targeted assassinations would probably never make the news or appear as an assassination in the first place.

Not only that, but the ability to prove it would also probably mean breaking a gak ton of national security regulations and laws, including treason. If I know the CIA/KGB/MI6 "accidented" someone, wouldn't it be foolish to reveal that?

And I know it isn't the KGB anymore, I just don't remember what it is now.

Yes, but our gold standard here is a single murder or set of murders that prevented a war, in particular in the case of a head of state.

That is not something that thas happened. Something that critical would not have escaped notice.

Assasinating Bhutto could have prevented an escalation of the war against Al Qaeda in Northern Pakistan.
But you're attempting to prove a negative. Stalin began implementing a new progrom shortly before he collapsed and died, saving thousands if not hundreds of thousands. There was speculation it was a hit.

We also successfullly assassinated Yamamoto with lightnings blowing his plane out of the sky, eliminating the possibility that he could have created another strategic miracle and smashed the US fleet (a second time).

Inversely, you can't speculate that it wouldn't have an impact. Undoubtedly Hitler's death when the bomb went off would have saved lots of lives. What is Lenin or Stalin had been capped in 1905? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? These people created the modern murder state.