Thursday, March 28, 2013

Assassination, Politicide, And Tyrannicide: A Theoretical Discussion


A host of Conservative Sheeplets, and more than a few Progressives who have obviously failed to review our Page, "Objections Rebutted" (http://www.criminalizeconservatism.com/p/objections-rebutted.html), have derided this site and its premises recently, calling Criminalizing Conservative "extreme" and "un-Constitutional," leading us to wonder the reaction if we tried to justify assassination, regicide, or tyrannicide as remedies for the vast conservative criminal conspiracy hiding under the various political front groups, "think" tanks, and other Conservative fronts and other *ad hoc* groups.

First, some definitions from Wikipedia:

Assassination

Assassination Attempt On President Ronald Reagan

"Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.[1][2] A person who commits such an act is called an assassin.

"An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives; it may be carried out for the prospect of financial gain, toavenge a grievance, or from the desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition).

Politicide

"Politicide has three related but distinct meanings. It can mean a gradual but systematic attempt to cause the annihilation of an independent political and social entity,[1] such as the destruction of theapartheid system in South Africa.[2] Others have used the term to mean the deliberate physical destruction of a group whose members share the main characteristic of belonging to a political movement; this definition has been used because the systematic destruction of such groups is not covered as genocide under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(CPPCG). The CPPCG only covers the deliberate physical destruction of national, ethnic, racial and religious groups.[3] A third use as noted by the Oxford English Dictionary is that which describes an action which irreparably damages a person's own political career (political suicide).[4]

"Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling uses the term in his book Politicide: Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians and in various articles. He defines "the politicide of the Palestinian people, a gradual but systematic attempt to cause their annihilation as an independent political and social entity." This he believed has been present throughout Israel's confrontations with the Palestinians, but was epitomised by the thoughts and actions of Ariel Sharon.[5]

"The social scientists Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr use the term politicide to describe the killing of groups of people who are targeted not because of shared ethnic or communal traits (the types of groups covered by the CPPCG), but because of "their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups"."[3]

Tyrannicide

Assassination of King Henry III of France


"Tyrannicide literally means the killing of a tyrant, or one who has committed the act. Typically, the term is taken to mean the killing or assassination of tyrants for the common good. The term "tyrannicide" does not apply to tyrants killed in battle or killed by an enemy in an armed conflict. It is rarely applied when a tyrant is killed by a person acting for selfish reasons, such as to take power for themselves, or to the killing of a former tyrant. Sometimes, the term is restricted to killings undertaken by people who are actually subject to the tyrant.[1] The term is also used to denote those who actually commit the act of killing a tyrant: i.e., Harmodius and Aristogeiton are called 'the tyrannicides'.[2]

"Tyrannicide can also be a political theory.[3] Support for tyrannicide can be found in Plutarch's Lives, Cicero's De Officiis,[4] and Thomas Aquinas's commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard.[5] TheMonarchomachs in particular developed a theory of tyrannicide, with Juan de Mariana describing their views in the 1598 work De rege et regis institutione,[6] in which he wrote, '[B]oth the philosophers and theologians agree, that the prince who seizes the state with force and arms, and with no legal right, no public, civic approval, may be killed by anyone and deprived of his life...'"[4]

A study of assassination warns us:

"JUSTIFICATION

Aftermath of Failed Assassination Attempt On Adolf Hitler


"Murder is not morally justifiable. Self-defense may be argued if the victim has knowledge which may destroy the resistance organization if divulged. Assassination of persons responsible for atrocities or reprisals may be regarded as just punishment. Killing a political leader whose burgeoning career is a clear and present danger to the cause of freedom may be held necessary.

"But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it."

And while a recent poll has found that "Most Britons back assassination of terrorists in UK or abroad," no poll we could find asks the same question regarding domestic assassination.

And a Conservative think tank has contributed to the discussion in their piece, "Is Assassination an Option?," here --> http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7926, while another piece, "THE MORAL ARGUMENT FOR A POLICY OF ASSASSINATION," concludes:

"Hence, where national leaders are sufficient threats to others they forfeit their rights and may thus be justly disabled or killed. A different theory of assassination does not focus on combatants or threats but instead makes the permissibility of assassinating a leader depend on whether it brings about the best consequences."

AND:

On a self-defense theory, some national leaders may be killed because they are threats. They are threats because they originate a causal process that will likely bring about large amounts of unjust harm. In so doing, they forfeit those moral rights that protect them against injurious action and thus remove one of the major constraints against violence and killing. On a consequentialist theory, such a policy would likely bring about 
the best consequences since it would be a vital tool in the protection against genocide, unjust military aggression, and other horrendous state actions that have characterized the twentieth century. It is unlikely that the harm that would result from such a policy (e.g., its misuse) would outweigh the expected gain from it."

Dictators around the world survived multiple assassination attempts, the attempts on Fidel Castro reportedly planned by the CIA.

Nicolae Ceausescu, Sadaam Hussein, and Fidel Castro

We certainly couldn't justify these methods of exterminating the worst of the Conservatism pests today, even if we believed it to be the best and speediest means to fumigating our deteriorating democracy. Some might object to this sort of wholesale killing, even if the timely elimination of a few of these gangsters would prove an unprecedented boon to mankind.

Wouldn't wiping out the five undercover Conservative operatives in the Supreme Court be considered wholly immoral by some, even though the current occupant of the White house would then be able to nominate five new Justices who weren't democratically challenged? Would the setting of bombs at the next Republican Convention, directed by home-made radio-controlled drones, be considered overkill though the Country would finally be freed from many of the murderous fiends who infest our polity?

And how in the world could we justify the selective assassination of billionaires who secretly - or openly - fund conservative candidates and causes, even though thousands of lives would be saved and starvation and disease would be reduced dramatically for thousands more with the death of just one swine like a Sheldon Adelson? If the members of the Walmart Waltons were gunned down one at a time, would some of those remaining reverse their course of Greed, or would heirs to the Walton estate just continue to impoverish their workers?

Hitler might have had problems expanding the Nazi without his propagandist joseph Goebbels, but would targeting the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, or Becks of the right-wing world have kept the Bush boys out of the White House? We'll never know, will we...

And finally, noting that neither political assassination, politicide, or tyrannicide are endorsed by this site, no matter how effective widespread targeted elimination would be, wouldn't other greedy and power-mad pigs just crawl out of the mud to fill the new vacuum -- or would they shy away from entering a precarious career fraught with itchy progressive trigger fingers? What ambitious Conservative capo would opt for the position of federal judge or Secretary of State if the possibility of a bullet in the head were a distinct possibility?  Would the snuffing of the governor of Virginia be considered a moral act if it restored voting rights to the People, or would multiple executions, say of the Virginia GOP, be a more effective - though not more cost effective - tool? (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/virginia-governor-signs-bill-requiring-photo-id-to-vote.php?ref=fpb)

Parenthetically, we refer the curious reader thirsting for more information to our Page, "Punishments," for a more gentle, conciliatory method of controlling Conservatism in the future, when Conservatism is finally criminalized.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Can miles truly separate you from friends... If you want to be with someone you
love, aren't you already there?"

Richard Bach


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------