Dan, I think those are good questions. But we should also ask whether the the purpose of assassination is purely to “stop the fighting” or whether there are other destructive/constructive purposes to assassinating a capable leader.

I think Amalickiah, as a sort of wicked genius, was a serious danger to everyone around him. He was, if you think about it, a walking violation of human rights. So I think killing him was an act of service to both the Nephites and the Lamanites.

The same goes with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Just what good did that assassination do? Well, it certainly didn’t stop Hamas, did it? No, in fact, Hamas just months later won Palestinian elections and now rule Palestine. Much good it did for Israel to assassinate Yassin.

I’m really drawing a blank on effective assassinations, except for in works of fiction. ;)

Dan, let me re-word this another way … and make it more contemporary and personal.

Let’s take the manner in which our government looks at al-Qaeda. In effect you are saying that we should approach our foreign policy with the following point of view, that is, that al-Qaeda has already achieved successful attacks on American soil and since the damage is done, there is no point at all in killing Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps, what you mean is that there would have been a point to killing Osama bin Laden before 9/11 but afterwards there’s just no reason in pursuing him anymore. From your perspective, that would achieve absolutely nothing?

Dan,

Maybe in football you shouldn’t ever sack the quarterback either. The game will continue afterwards, so there is no point to tackling him in the first place.

But first of all, I don’t think it achieves “nothing”, though you insist on maintaining that point. One immediate benefit to killing an enemy leader is that it raises the morale of your own troops and demoralizes the enemy troops. This is significant because it may determine who wins the next battle and possibly even determine who wins the war.

If you are going to fight at all, then you shouldn’t exempt the enemy leader from attack.

I suspect though, Dan, that you are actually advocating pacifism – and that really your point is that we shouldn’t be fighting at all. If that is your point, then your argument fits the overall perspective you are advocating – but you should come right out and say as much.

Dan,

It’s not clear to me what you need to see in order for something to work or to achieve a positive purpose. It seems that you want there to be ultimate victory and ultimate peace for assassination to serve a purpose. That’s not the way I see the picture. I see assassination as a stepping-stone, a tactic that should be combined with many other tactics in the course of war.

In regards to the football analogy, hitting/tackling (especially if it is a hard hit) a quarterback, at anytime can be useful. If it was effective, he will be dazed, bruised, etc. – which means he may be less capable of leading the team on future plays. Also, when a quarterback has been sacked, it undermines the confidence of the players who are supposed to be protecting him. It means that the quarterback loses confidence in his team-mates and at the same time they themselves may start second-guessing themselves.

If in wartime a group has a capable leader who knows how to plan and strategize well – and you kill that leader – then the group has to go through the effort of replacing that leader with someone else.

There was a time period where Israel was assassinating any Hamas leader who dared to identify himself publicly. It got to a point where many of the Hamas group’s most capable leaders were no longer in play and they were having to re-build and re-think their entire approach to things. It seemed at that point that the head of Hamas or Islamic Jihad was being killed every two or three weeks. I’m sure that was more than just a little aggravating.

I don’t associate Hamas winning the elections with the assassinations that took place. I attribute that much more to the fact that Fatah (the previously leading party) was extremely corrupt and everyone in Gaza and the West Bank was sick of it. I also associate Hamas winning with the fact that Arafat monopolized economic power and to a great extent, political power – while he was alive. He did not do a good job of cultivating a replacement. This is one of the reasons why Yasir Arafat succeeded as a symbol but failed as a leader.

Just one final note – there is already a strong feeling with the Palestinian population that some Palestinians are giving away the locations of Hamas operatives to the Israelis. Again, as I mentioned in the quarterback example, the Palestinians are becoming suspicious of one another and are second-guessing themselves.

It is almost impossible for a government to function properly if the leaders cannot enjoy a feeling of security and safety.

Dan,

I should be more specific – there is a strong feeling within the Palestinian authority that the Fatah party (the most prominent Palestinian party after Hamas) is privately collaborating with the Israelis to kill Hamas leaders and that Israel is actually arming Fatah.

In a very real sense, the Palestinian political parties are fighting a civil war. Israel is participating to an extent that meets its own interests and Israel assassinating Hamas leaders only improves the Israeli position.

Since Hamas is a terrorist group that openly advocates the destruction of Israel – I have no sympathy for them.

danithew,

You could look at this from a purely utilitarian standpoint and see whether it “helps us win” (whatever that may mean to you). But don’t forget the moral dimension either.

Does the US cede a bit of the moral high ground when it tries to assassinate enemy leadership? Does Israel?

In the cases of both Israel and the US, I would argue that the moral high ground is, by far, our most crucial foreign policy asset. Probably even more important than our carrier task forces. We should be very hesitant about undermining that moral authority.

danithew,

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t exempt anybody from death in war. I think all, from the general down to the lowly soldier are not immune to death in war.

I still wait for actual examples where assassination moved a war forward to a conclusion. If not, what’s the point of that strategy?

And yes, in war, your strategies should have as their ultimate end, the ending of the war and the establishment of peace. Is that not the right thing to do?

Dan, in using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we may be using a conflict that matches your argument better than mine.

Is there an end in sight for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

So maybe we could ask the question – if this will be a perpetually ongoing conflict, should assassination play a role in it? Since it is a war, and since it is ongoing, I think assassination should play a role.

Again, if a person is a pacifist – really believes in pacifism, then the whole package must be rejected and we must lay down all arms and be prepared to prostrate ourselves on the ground and quite possibly be killed.

However, if we are not pacifists and willing to engage in war – then we should resign ourselves to any activity that will bring our side an advantage – even a temporary advantage.

Well Dan, let’s talk about the example of Yehya Ayyash, also known as al-Muhandis (the Engineer). He was creating many of the explosives that were being used routinely by Hamas to blow up Israeli buses. This was some time ago.

Israel killed him with a special cell-phone that had been pre-packaged with explosives.

Did the bus bombings stop after that? Not entirely. No. So you may say I’m making your point. However, I would add to this that the number of bus bombings, overall, went down after his death.

It’s an argument that could go on and on, as it has been.

I think part of the problem is that we come from very different vantage-points – so it will be very difficult for us to come to any agreement on this post topic. At some point, we may need to recognize that and move on. I don’t anticipate that I’m really going to change your viewpoint on this topic or that you will change my viewpoint. In the meantime, no doubt, we will bore a lot of people with our arguments.

Dan:

You wanted one example of a successful assasination attempt: Admiral Yamamoto. His death did not end the fighting but it did hinder the Japanese effort by requiring the promotion of a less-qualified, less-competent commander to his position. And if only Hitler’s deputies had been successful in one of their attempts there’s little doubt WWII in Europe would have ended much sooner– before the Battle of the Bulge which alone cost more than 50,000 lives and four times the number of injured. The assassination by rebels of Samoza in Nicaragua lead to the demise of his government so that could be termed a success. Need I go on?

The fatal flaw to your challenge is that “success” for any particular assination attempt may not equate with your own desired goals.

If one assumes that Hamas (or any similar organization) operates as a meritocracy then eliminating the leadership inevitably injures the organization (though not necessarily killing it). A sustained effort to eliminate leadership will inevitably lead to the demise of the targeted organization as the talent pool diminishes.

Dan, #1, 22: The war with the Lamanites pretty much ended the day after the assassination of Ammoron (Alma 62:36-39):

“…Teancum…did go forth into the camp of the Lamanites, and…he did find the king; and he did cast a javelin at him, which did pierce him near the heart.

“Now it came to pass that Moroni marched forth on the morrow, and came upon the Lamanites, insomuch that they did slay them with a great slaughter; and they did drive them out of the land; and they did flee, even that they did not return at that time against the Nephites.

“And thus ended the thirty and first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; and thus they had had wars, and bloodsheds, and famine, and affliction, for the space of many years.”

To see if assassination is productive or right or not, let’s see if the assassination of Lieberman, Peres or Olmert will have any effect on the state-run terrorism of Israel.

Not that a lot of Americans care, I’m sure, but I thought I’d mention that it is currently illegal under international law, for one nation to specifically assassinate the leader of another nation.

Just a fun fact – Saddam Hussein, prior to the latest US invasion, suggested that he and Bush might choose, weapons, meet privately and settle the whole matter “mano-e-mano.”

Seth:

Idiotic rules like that are what make international law a pathetic joke.

endless,

Something you need to keep in mind:

The law is not so much about reality as it is about the perception of reality. Following international law gives an aura of respectability to national undertakings, regardless of what the practical reality may or may not be.

DKL,
I understand your sentiment. I just don’t get the “if” part.

Seth:

“Following international law gives an aura of respectability to national undertakings…”

That’s the essense of the problem. It lends “legitimacy” to all governments on the international stage regardless of the relative merits of said governments. International law is what puts the likes of Iran, Lybia, and Algeria in charge of policing human rights across the globe. Anyone taking international law seriously should get his/her head examined.

two thoughts.

danithew stated:

The Book of Mormon offers up numerous examples of assassinations and it is a tactic used by both the righteous and the wicked.

who was righteous? Im not sure why you assume any of these guys were righteous. It seems its usually wicked killing wicked.

Oh and as to assassination, hasnt Iisrael been doing that for some 40 years now, its working great last i checked.

Joshua, the righteous Book of Mormon example I was thinking of was Teancum (see links in original post).

I’m not sure if it counts as assassination or not (since it was in the midst of battle) but I find the confrontation between Alma and Amlici, followed by Alma confronting the king of the Lamanites, to be an interesting passage to consider (see Alma chapter 2):

29 And it came to pass that Alma fought with Amlici with the sword, face to face; and they did contend mightily, one with another.
30 And it came to pass that Alma, being a man of God, being exercised with much faith, cried, saying: O Lord, have mercy and spare my life, that I may be an instrument in thy hands to save and preserve this people.
31 Now when Alma had said these words he contended again with Amlici; and he was strengthened, insomuch that he slew Amlici with the sword.
32 And he also contended with the king of the Lamanites; but the king of the Lamanites fled back from before Alma and sent his guards to contend with Alma.
33 But Alma, with his guards, contended with the guards of the king of the Lamanites until he slew and drove them back.

Again, this may not be an example of assassination in the sense that we think of it – but Alma (a Book of Mormon example of righteousness) demonstrates a personal initiative, purpose and drive in taking the fight directly to the leaders of the opposing group. He seems pretty intent on killing them and even prays in the process for divine help.

The war against terrorists does not have a foreseeable end. But I don’t think we can sit back or take a middle position in regards to how we respond to them.

I still don’t see how you can assume that Teancum or even Alma is righteous. Simply because the BoM says he was a man of God and praying for God’s help does not make him righteous or his acts righteous.

I see a tendency, more so among supporters of violence and war to use examples of various individuals in the BoM who are not following Christ’s teachings. The Doctrine of Christ espoused by Nephi is that Christ will teach you all things you should do, In 1 Nephi 12, the only time the angel says that people were good in the BoM is when Christ is there and immediately after when they follow his teachings and war no more. And what does Christ do when he shows up, he says cut it out, no more contention, love your enemies, do good unto them, he doesn’t say assassinate them until you become so evil that there is no difference between the two of you, he doesnt justify the violence of the Lamanites nor the Nephites, his command is to cut it out, learn of him and be peaceable. They did that and had zion for a brief time.

As for Alma and Teancum and their righteousness – all I can say is that the Book of Mormon text endorses them. If we can’t trust the writers/editors of the text then we might as well just toss it out.

Curtis, my point isn’t to justify all killing that takes place. I’ve tried to point out that assassination is used by both wicked and righteous persons.

If I’ve mis-represented or wrested any scriptural text that I’ve used, let me know.

danithew,

Jesus comes in both old and new world and asks us to follow him, his life in Palestine and his visit and teachings among the Nephites are what he commands us to follow and be like. Jesus, as he lived, was a pacifist willing to submit even to the cross. He came to both old and new world to set a course correction, not more of the same. He either meant what he taught or he didn’t. The sermon on the mount is either how he wants us to live or its not. We can’t rationalize away the implications of his life an teachings by saying he did A, B, and C before he was mortal. If we cannot accept Christ’s teaching and his life then what are we worshiping. To separate Christ’s life and teachings and only worship his death and resurrection is a form of blasphemy in my mind. It is his life and teachings that encompass who he is and why can atone and save.

Now, if we are discussing whether “Jehovah” is a pacifist or what God actually does or destroys that is another question.

Lastly, as to stating If we can’t trust the writers/editors of the text then we might as well just toss it out. Surely the writers/editors are men who interpret things through their own experience and understanding. In my mind given the option between weighing Alma, Moroni, etc views and Jesus’ teachings there is no question whose are superior and where my trust will lay. Prophets, inspired, yes, but even they needed a course correction, even they needed the sermon on the mount and the command to end contention, to find peace.

We have two examples of how followers of Christ contemporaneous and shortly after him lived. In both instances, they renounced war, violence, and turned the other cheek. In 4 Nephi generations are righteous because they renounce contention. In the old world the Christians categorically refuse to lift arms and would suffer martydom rather than shed life. Where they so confused about his message? Or perhaps are we missing it in order to justify taking of human life.

No danithew.

There are examples when He COMMANDS the people to take up arms – period.

Express commandment from God is the justification for war. Any other time, you’re on your own.

And incidentally, as far as I’m concerned, passages from the D&C have trumped and superceded any Law of Moses, retribution schemes the Nephites may have been living under.

Seth, also – I don’t think that Nephite wars (or the Israelite wars, for that matter) had anything to do with the law of Moses. Maybe I’m wrong though. I’ll have to think about that.

Usually when I think of the law of Moses, I think of the commandments, the rules and regulations regarding the construction of the tabernacle, dietary laws, etc. I guess, technically, anything that happens in the 5 books of Moses is part of the Torah. However, many of the most significant Israelite wars/battle fall outside of those texts.

D&C 98 is fairly clear on the subject.

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

ok Danithew,

so our allegiance first and foremost is whatever God commands, Abraham and Isaac, Nephi-Labaan, etc.

absent his express command it is to renounce violence and be a pacifist.

In my mind this means I am a pacifist unless God himself commands me and even then I’m going to make sure he really is commanding it.

At a minimum this means the majority of all violence absent very isolated circumstances is not justified

Seth,
Right on brother. That’s exactly what I have felt as well. I think there is an untold horror associated with the huge number of refugees we caused in Afganistan in the winter.

danithew,

As I stated earlier, pacifism doesn’t typically accept exceptions.

Sure it does, when someone attacks you, defend yourself. Otherwise, why attack them?

Pacifism is NOT defeatism. Unfortunately, too many today try to make that equation. I think that the best example from the Book of Mormon that we have in regards to how to deal with terrorists comes from 3 Nephi 3:

20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.
21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

Unfortunately, America is too empirical right now for us to just wait around here for them to come to us. We have too many forward bases, too deeply involved in the internal affairs of other nations—which actually is one of the major roots of terrorists hitting us—for this to work, but this is the best answer.

Let them come to us. We really have no business in their lands.

Dan – the only problem I’d have is figuring out how well exactly that verse applies to the al-Qaeda problem. It seems to me the geographical configuration is different … we aren’t going to gather in all U.S. citizens to one city and I don’t think al-Qaeda would starve if we did.

But I do think the idea of praying and receiving inspiration before acting (in matters as important as this) is a wise policy.

Dan, you have to remember that we were protecting a no-fly zone in northern Iraq – that we were protecting Kurds from Saddam’s aggression and Saddam was routinely firing on those planes.

Also, there is a documented plan by Saddam to assassinate Bush (the senior) during a trip he made to Kuwait.

It’s not really correct to say that Iraq never attacked us.

Again, I know we could argue about this until the end of time. So maybe it’s mistake for me to even start.

Isn’t it funny how we suddenly wanted to protect the Kurds when before we refused to condemn the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja? We don’t seem to concerned about the Kurds when Turkey, our major strategic ally, is the one doing the killing of the Kurds.
We also even provided satellite imagery to Saddam, and other help so that he could gas the Iranians.
In any case, the no-fly zone protection thing was apparently a US and Britain interpretation of the UN resolution and was not specifically sanctioned by the resolution.
It is funny to say Iraq attacked us by shooting at our planes (never hitting any as I recall) when we were the ones flying over their country dropping bombs not infrequently.

Danithew,
Thank you for being very civil here though I’m sure that you and I are on different sides of the spectrum of opinions here, you find common ground in a rather good sport sort of way.

This is an interesting thread- as I am currently taking a graduate course in assassination.

I think what should have been done at the begining of the thread was to define assassination and agree on the definiation. I define it as the illegal killing of a person, usually a politician, usually using treachery.

The presence of war, in today’s terms, legitimizes the killing of combatants in any setting. -Thus, making the killing of terrorists not assassination, but, a targeted killing. One is legal the other is not.

In the BoM all the killing done by righteous people was done in times of war. The killing by the wicked was done in times other than war.

I also think targeted killing is only one of many tactics that should be used in war. Just as, say, artillary or tanks, or bombing runs- individually do not win wars, combined they can.

There were several attempts, unsuccessful of course, on Hitler’s life made by fellow Germans during WW II.

There were successfull attempts on leaders, though not the top leader, of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Most were military leaders, but some were political.

I read about some of them in “93 Confirmed Kills”, about Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock.

There have been lots of political assassinations in Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian sub-continent in the last 50 years.

Another famous example are the attempts by the US to kill Fidel Castro.