Would you classify someone who enters a country through means of stealth and then kills its leader and "assassin"?

Was Nephi an assassin?

Is it better that one man die rather than a nation fall into inquity?

Would you have assassinated Hitler in the 1920's?

 

rayb wrote:

---

Um... yeah they all seem pretty assassiny to me... but hey! I'm the one asking the questions...

--Ray

 

---

Ahem... no, you were the one setting bait for a debate and then got baited back by another debator...

I am so into recognizing baiting since this past Thursday and one of my 11 year old Scouts baited me good during the middle of Scout meeting! Told the boys dad today during priesthood opening exercises and he laughed saying that sounded like his son!

As to the Teancum thing, well, I wouldn't call what he did a unilateral assassination. He did a surgical strike against the ones responsible for the unwarranted aggression and hostilities. Both times were successful, but he lost his life in completing his self-appointed mission second time around.

The question I think that is more interesting to ask in this context is if the Book of Mormon and its contents were abridged for our benefit in our generation, what are we to learn from the story of Teancum? How does that apply to us? How do we liken it unto us?

Laban and Nephi? Not assasination. Laban was not the leader of the people at Jerusalem. He was a man of influence and had connections with the governing council, but it does not mean he was the leader. Wasn't Zedekiah the king? Laban had offended Nephi at least twice previous to being delivered into his hands, and the offenses were not just to the tune of "Yo momma wears combat boots". He had robbed them of the family fortune (which under Mosaic law was likely a capital offense) and he had threatened to kill them. I'm sure that under Mosaic law, Nephi's slaying of Laban would have been completely justified, even if we do not have the full details. The Lord always works within His own laws.

I do not subscribe to the idea of collective guilt for what the government does.

 

Honestly I wasn't baiting anyone... I was positing a moral paradox.

--Ray

 

It's a moral paradox because you're preemptively killing someone for killing (or the threat of killing) others.

Then again, the whole law of moses is a moral paradox, imo...

--Ray

I'll sign up to assassinate Mao and Stalin, if you sign up to assassinate those other two...

--Ray

 

rayb wrote:

---

I'll sign up to assassinate Mao and Stalin, if you sign up to assassinate those other two...

--Ray

 

---

No fair, I already took care of those two!

rayb wrote:

---

Btw, Jeffrey,  I really liked your challenge... especially the point about Nephi, but I would ask if you think the CIA is capable of having the same level of "Spirit of Prophecy" that Nephi had in order to "see into the future" of any place, in order to precog where it would be appropriate to justify killing another individual, no matter how repugnant...

Also, doesn't It always begs the question, What if someone worse comes along?

--Ray

---

Do we depend on revelation to rule someone guilty under the death penalty?  In my view the ideal for its use is one in which it is carefully chosen, and used when it is deemed necessary to prevent a greater evil.

Did Kennedy have that in mind during his numerous attempts to kill Castro?  Or allowing the assassination of Ngo Din Dheim?  (In Vietnam the act weakened South Vietnam and increased the level of insurgency which in turn brought more soldiers to Vietnam, the rest is history).

When one looks at the question of assassination, one must also be prepared to see who is in the wings and more to the point, attempt to understand the unintentional consequences.

Consider Labans death.  Had Laban not been killed, how much more difficult would the odds have been that Lehi and his family would not have been followed by a band of Labans men with the intention of killing them?

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 18:29, 2006-11-06

If I could kill Hitler before he came to power yes.  But an assassin able to work in hindsight isn't realistic.

Would I be an assassin for a democracy that tried to do the right thing in general?  Yes I would, knowing men are flawed, consider that the US would not have had to go into Iraq if one of the assassination attempts had worked (fired a missile into a restaurant he was attending).

Consider the fact that had Mao been killed by an assassin, you wouldn't have 12 - 20 million Chines that starved to death during his mandated purges.  That North Korea would not have ceased to exist and a unified Korea under a real democracy existed.

There are risks involved and yes it can be abused.  Just like the military itself can (see the history of the US against the American Indians), just like our justice system can be perverted for wrong choices, and so on....

There is always risk.

And what Nephi did is not different from other ordered assassinations, it is simply the level of surety, not the action itself.

But it raises an interesting note.  If the prophet told you to go to, say San Francisco and kill every man, woman, and child in it, would you?  How would that be different than Samuel telling Saul to do likewise?

Let us hope that we never live in such times again.

A declaration of war or hostilities is fair warning that all key components of the enemy camp are targets.  Assassination, done for political (not military means) might distinct.

So, lets look at Nephi.  Was he killing for military or political reasons?  One could surmise both.  The non military reason would be to obtain the plate or legal documentation (ie political structure) of his tribe, the assumption is also that Laban would have taken a military stance and attacked the Lehi family once he recovered.

So would I kill Hitler or Mao prior to hostilities?  Or perhaps Stalin so that Trotsky could take over?  Perhaps.

Would I sanction such an organization to attack political leaders that are a danger to my country.  Yes.

Unfortunately Hobbes is mostly right.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 22:23, 2006-11-06

You make a strong case against the death penalty then.  After all, unless the spirit dictates then you should never say that "God wanted him dead".

And a strong case against ever going to war unless God himself tells us.

We are left to make certain decisions ourselves including life and death decsions.

I asked specifically about the CIA. It is not even based in truth or prophecy... and is a human institution... not sure though, which is scarier, someone using god's laws to justify targetted killing of leaders before they commit their attrocities, or a supposedly secular human institutition doing the same thing. What if someone like Ghandi were viewed as a "threat" and were killed? Or Martin Luther King Jr? (Oh wait...)

Sigh, conspiracy theories about as we seek to "slander" organizations and people with less evidence than applied to Jefferson.  The government did not kill Martin Luther King, and the CIA certainly had nothing to do with it, as opposed to the FBI which handles domestic affairs, the CIA tends toward the extra national isues.

CIA is not based on truth or prophecy?  You know this how?  How exactly is the CIA not based on truth?  Does it seek to know the real motivations of other groups?  Or are you stating that some things like "spying" shouldn't occur (I could direct you to several instances of spying in many books of scripture, as well as George Washington who himself was an excellent spy master).

To say we should not remove someone who is a clear and present danger to the US is utterly ridiculous.  Usama bin Ladin is a prime candidate and yes, we want him dead.

Would Mao's massacre be less so, had someone removed him? Or would he simply be replaced by another? Some believe that Hitler, while he started world war II, also was the reason why the allied forces won it... that had Hitler not been so insane, he would not have made nearly so many mistakes in the pursuit of the war...  

You really should study your history a bit more.  The Hitlers actions, the taking of the Sudetenland, the signing of a peace agreement with Stalin over the invasion and division of Poland.  When you state "some" you misinterpret.  I can say "some" people regarding just about any crazy belief system.  Better to be specific and logical about it.

Without Hitler, would the nationalist socialist movement have come about or would democracy have regained itself?  Hitler did stop communism in Germany, and he wasn't "crazy" as in illogical in his actions and reasoning.  Until later in the war that is.  So Hitler's reasoning took Europe in a month or so, drove the USSR to its knees, and also brought about the failure of Germany in the war at the end.  It is a mixed bag.  The war would have ended sooner if the second in command had been in charge.  That would be Hess, who actually tried to fly to England to craft some sort of agreement.  So the sodden "some" you speak of seem to miss the logic of the Deputy Chancellor Rudolph Hess and his overtures to peace had Hitler been assassinated.

The position presented is a poor one.

 

Would Mao's massacre be less so, had someone removed him? Or would he simply be replaced by another? Some believe that Hitler, while he started world war II, also was the reason why the allied forces won it... that had Hitler not been so insane, he would not have made nearly so many mistakes in the pursuit of the war...  

Mao was a driving force of personality, we can see how much China opened to the west 'after' his death.  Chinese people are finally having to deal with weight gain versus starvation under the personality cult of Mao.

 

The more I think about it, perhaps war is the only honest answer to attrocity. God didn't send assassins to slay Satan, though he was clearly the ring-leader of leading 1/3rd of his children to their eternal damnation...

Are you telling me you believe God can kill a spirit?  Or are you telling me that disagreement with God should have implied a death sentence for Satan?  Or is free agency not really the option in this?

In fact God has sent assassins to do his bidding.  I again point specifically to Nephi.  Who carried out a political assassination of obtain politically important material.

Assassination is an option and an important one that should be used carefully.  Why killing millions when killing one may well prevent it?

 

 

I recognize the fact that we should defend our country's interests, and defend our families even unto bloodshed. Heck, that's been the focus of much of my scripture study lately, but what I still think is unclear is how to reconcile the idea of preemptive violence.

The book of mormon states:

(Alma 43:46 - And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.)

This implies two direct offenses against you. What exactly is an offense, I don't know. We are certainly entitled to defend ourselves.

You claim my arguments are weak, but the only reason your arguments are "strong" is because you have the benefit of history to look back on very specific examples. What if the early Christians had used this assassination justification on Alma the Younger, or on Saul of Tarsus?

What if the Anti-Nephi-Lehites didn't lay down their lives, what of those whose hearts were changed by the very act of their own laying down their life?

Further I am wary of using any Old Testament justification for any sort of action we will be called upon to perform in these days, for we have the benefit of the Master who implored we "Turn the other Cheek" and "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that spitefully use you and persecute you." and that we forgive our brother "seven times seventy"...

This is where I perceive a paradox or contradictory commands.

Then again, maybe you can make a case for loving your enemy by killing him... ...I certainly don't withhold that possibility... it's like excommunication... from life... you're doing him a favor by taking him out... but then, when are men to make that judgement and what controls would one place upon the application of such "mercy".

--Ray

 

 

 

 

-- Edited by rayb at 15:41, 2006-11-07

I don't know that I can address your question properly, Ray. I do know that Joseph Smith was told by the Lord at one point that the Lord would "call home" anyone that Joseph asked him to. He never did. If I were given that power, in his situation, I don't know that I would have been a strong enough person to resist. But the fact that he didn't use it says something, I think. He surely could have saved the lives of many Saints by selective use of that power.

Your explanation does nothing for me. I was aware of these particular scriptures, but Amalickiah had his two or three chances. Teancums actions while clearly a very surgical attack, only occurred after he had taken his army into Nephite land.

Further, Moroni (the second) felt that the Lord withdrew his protection from the Nephites as soon as they turned to preemption... There's a continuum here...

--Ray

 

So, legally, there is a clear distinction.

Just like legally, there is a clear distinction between killing and murder.

Just like in the gospel, there is a clear distinction between taking a life and murder.

On the lighter side... what then is 007, Bond, James Bond?  When he kills, even though he is licensed to kill, is it considered an assasination (murder) or a surgically precise military strike upon lawful combatants (or unlawful bad guys )?

Another perspective:

Sun Tzu in "The Art of War" (recommended reading for military officers) advocated assassinations.  So did Machiavelli.

Which makes more sense:  Spending the lives of our sons and daughters and our nation's resources to wage a conventional war that will, despite our best efforts, result in civilian casualties, and that will destroy our enemy's economic, political, and cultural systems--leaving a collosal mess for us to clean up?  Or sending in a small elite group of assassins to take out a few key leaders and avoid all the death and destruction?  Which is more ethical in the final analysis?

EO12333 was amended and allows the use of lethal force as of September 1 2001 by George Bush (which raises the interesting question of how Clinton can claim he tried to have Usama bin Ladin killed prior to that time without rescinding the order).

I may be wrong, not having studied the subject, but didn't that executive order apply to heads of state? Osama isn't a head of state. He's the head of a terrorist organization. OF course, Clinton is a liar, but maybe not in this particular.

-- Edited by arbilad at 16:42, 2006-11-08

 
This is the one case when Mormon  (I mispoke and said Moroni the 2nd, but it was Mormon that I was referring to... in which the Nephites engaged in a sort of "preemption" and were driven back...).
 
Further you are ignoring the nature of the Law God gave to the men (in as much as you are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second), which is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of preemption.
 
Mormon 4:4-5 -
 
  4 And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.

  5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.
 
---
 
Also I note that Jeff's language seeks to blur the line when assassination is appropriate. So I'd like to hear exactly when HE thinks it is appropriate to use assassinations.
 
I am fairly certain that murder for profit is immoral, so is this a good place to draw the line?
 
--Ray
 

rayb wrote:

---

  This is the one case when Mormon  (I mispoke and said Moroni the 2nd, but it was Mormon that I was referring to... in which the Nephites engaged in a sort of "preemption" and were driven back...).   Further you are ignoring the nature of the Law God gave to the men (in as much as you are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second), which is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of preemption.   Mormon 4:4-5 -     4 And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.   5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.   ---   Also I note that Jeff's language seeks to blur the line when assassination is appropriate. So I'd like to hear exactly when HE thinks it is appropriate to use assassinations.   I am fairly certain that murder for profit is immoral, so is this a good place to draw the line?   --Ray  

---

You know, this was a bit of a quandry I was in initially with the whole going to war to begin with after 9-11.  I was hearing people saying things that really shocked me (as far as retribution type stuff and from people I would never have expected it from).  And it did trouble me until I received a sort of calming feeling that we were not going up to war simply to seek the blood of our enemies, and that we weren't going up to war without just provocation according to the law of God.  I realized that the terrorist organizations and the states that support them had not only struck once against us in the form of 9-11.  They had struck against us in the form of the attack on the USS Cole.  They had struck against us in the form of the attacks on the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.  They had sought to strike against us several times prior to 9-11 by downing US airliners and were thwarted by various means.  They had struck against us in Somalia.

There was perhaps in each case, a limited response to each of those.  But, there was no "pre-emption" to any of the current war on terror (and the modern gadiantans behind it... make no mistake, they are gadiantans) where we were guilty of the first or second offenses that would preclude the strength of The Lord in our behalf when we went forth in full force against the aggressors.  Even in the case of the Baathists in Iraq.  It didn't matter if no WMD were found after hitting the ground.  Those gadiantans in power there had caused numerous offenses to the people within the country and outside the country within the region.  They had had well over 10 years to become compliant with the treaties ending the first war and failed to do so.

So, as to assassination, semantics aside, I would venture to guess that taking out a head of state as part of the command and control infrastructure should be fine, as long as it is not preemptive to the point of not being in response to at least the second offense.  Sending in a death squad or a hit team is not the same thing as getting caught in a bombing or rocket raid... or is it?

If you will note, I edited the "brick wall" portion of that comment out of Jeffrey's post yesterday.



-- Edited by bokbadok at 23:31, 2006-11-09

rayb wrote:

---

  Btw, Jeff... are you doing okay? Recently, though, I've noted your comments have been a bit short-tempered... You're usually pretty well reasoned and fun to read, (though I readily admit I'm not big on the really really long posts from anyone... (cat )),  but this type of comment (as was pointed out to me by a concerned lurker, who wondered about the moderating standards on the board) is a veiled personal attack.   "It doesn't do much for a brick wall either, but it does establish context. It doesn't do much for a brick wall either, but it does establish context."   Honestly, I don't see any need to use personal attacks to bolster an argument. When I say I don't follow your reasoning it is because I don't follow it. It doesn't ring true to me. That's not an attack on you, it means that there's a gap in our communication, and I want to consider the WHOLE discussion...   It may be we simply disagree on the level of aggression, preemption, etc... I admit I employ ad absurdum perhaps more than most here, and quite honestly, personal attacks really don't bother me, but they do bother others who want to participate here... I know I have occasional "bad" moments...so I hope you're feeling okay, and all.    Best regards,   --Ray  

---

I am just fine, I was just wondering at how unreasoning some of the responses were.

Whether its a passive aggressive statement implicating the nature of the other poster, or a direct snide remark, I do respond in a straight forward manner.

I am fine, I just don't fiddle faddle and play wounded deer. 

Well apparently I might just be too abrasive.