Amazon.com Widgets

Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?

  • Yes but only if this dictator refuses to appear before an international court

    The term "dictator" is relative. A dictator to one might be a fair leader to another. There should be a neutral, independant and agreed upon international court, like the International Criminal Court, that it alone can accuse a dictator and request that he be judged.
    BUT, if this dictator refuses to appear in court, and continues his atrocities, whatever they may be, then his assassination, in my opinion, can be justified as it would be the only way to make those atrocities stop.

  • Assassination of a dictator is a duty, obligation, and notion of democracy of America.

    Killing someone who might kill millions of people is a duty that all people have. This duty is saving other people's lives at the cost of an awful person is justifiable. The concept of democracy is to help us and other countries run better. You could say that imposing a certain type of government is exactly what a dictator would do; but changing a countries government to something that works and makes sure that the leader cannot do things like a dictator would do is an obligation all humans should do.

  • Why they should be assassinated

    They shall be assassinated by assassin sent out to kill them, Reason: If they think they can rule over us and do what which they please to us, they are very wrong, i will murder any dictator that i meet. I don't want to offend anyone but I feel i need to murder them. They do not have the right to rule free people, if you agree with me contact me at. Via gmail - ic0nicextabyte22@gmail.Com

  • Appealing to morals:

    When a dangerous dictator actively pursues to harm his own people, it is equally evil to not resist. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who fully agrees, gives an analogy that represents this statement, saying "If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver." Bonhoeffer was fully aware of Hitler’s crimes from the beginning his regime, and did all that he could to stop those crimes. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar gains fame and power as he conquers under the name of Rome, and eventually gets complete control over the country. However, Brutus, a well known noble Senator, disliked having a single dictator rule over Rome. He was fully aware of the potential wickedness and brutality of a dictator and thus (according to the play) lead an assassination on the dictator. Brutus, being a noble Roman, wouldn’t be the cause of murder without any reasoning. As Caesar grew in power, Brutus noticed more and more signs of his corruption, and finally (still reluctantly) agreed to assassinate him.

  • The Real Question

    I think the real question has to do with why we feel we can impose our felt liberties at the expense of others. Why do we think there would be no backlash to this type of "comedy". It does nothing to improve relations with North Korea and only serves to foster animosity in an already strained adversity. Though I in no way support the actions of the Korean despot, neither do I support taking his demise lightly. It is a tragedy when anyone has to be put to death whether good or evil. That is not to say it is never necessary. But if it is done it should never be fodder for laughs.

  • I believe so

    Dictators that kill deserve to be killed for killing because if they kill they will kill again and again with no consequence for there actions, except fear from there adversaries and potential rivals and in public grotesque executions the people they lead with fear will be thinking that could be me if I say anything that goes against that particular leader. And the funny thing about trying to put a dictator or any powerful person on trial is they have lots of influence so before the trial plenty of time to be broken out of incarceration, and even if they do succeed in putting that person on trial and they do live they can still run things from prison or wherever. Mob bosses do this all the time so yes killing them takes care of problems before they become more of a problem than they already are.

  • To be? Or not to be...Killed?

    We are writing an essay about this in my Honors English 2 class and I believe that is justified. I'm not saying that murder is justified, but the death penalty is still legal right? I mean, an eye for an eye right? If someone is killing their own people by the thousands even millions, it's obvious that something dramatic needs to take place, and imprisoning them or evicting them isn't really going to work, they still have the satisfaction of power and in today's society, they can easily come back into power and keep the chaos going. So yes, I believe that it is justified.

  • The United States has an obligation/expectation to support democracy across the globe

    If people in a nation under a dictatorship favor a democracy and the dictatorship refuses to budge, it should be necessary to remove that leader from his political power. We should have an obligation to spread democracy when supported by the people of that nation, even if it is by assassination.

  • Why should people continue to live in fear

    If people in that country are being poorly treated or tortured etc. then it is easily justifiable. That Dictator is not being killed because of the countries Dictatorship but because of the crimes the dictator has committed i.E murder, torture and so on. . . . . .. . .

  • Counter argument to 'you can't justify killing for the killing of others'

    We are not necessarily killing the dictator for his past actions, but also his future actions. By killing a dictator who is himself killing people, we may be saving many others; is the life of one worth the life of many?

    Then the argument becomes how can we justify killing someone on the basis of what they MIGHT do? Well why do we put people in jail who promise never to commit a crime again? Because odds are they will; past behavior indicates future actions. And even if that is invalid, is anyone willing to carry the burden of the hundreds of lives lost because we didn't want to kill someone who we thought deserved a chance to not kill?

  • Social Stability is not reassured

    The assassination of a dictator cannot be justified because it does not ensure that the next ruler or government would restore economic wealth. Furthermore the stability of a society. A death does not help restore a community and the community cannot be restore by justifying a death.
    -Adimar Hernandez Maldonado

  • The Real Question

    I think the real question has to do with why we feel we can impose our felt liberties at the expense of others. Why do we think there would be no backlash to this type of "comedy". It does nothing to improve relations with North Korea and only serves to foster animosity in an already strained adversity. Though I in no way support the actions of the Korean despot, neither do I support taking his demise lightly. It is a tragedy when anyone has to be put to death whether good or evil. That is not to say it is never necessary. But if it is done it should never be fodder for laughs.

  • Who decides whether to kill dictators?

    How do we draw a line between who gets assassinated and who doesn’t? If we start assassinating dictators, will we ever stop. What if there is a political leader standing in the way of what the people want. Should we assassinate them as well? This brings up the question of who decides whether someone deserves to be assassinated? Even if we had the right to make judgements as to which leaders deserve to die, our decisions would be arbitrary and without widespread support. Ladies and gentlemen, dictators are not alone. Most of them are part of elite groups of people who have the same autocratic views. These people, along with other people of the nation, support the dictator. If the dictator is killed, riots could form and the whole nation would be in turmoil. For example, after Julius Caesar died, Rome went into turmoil. A civil war broke out, ruining Rome. People partied in rejoice of the death of man. Albeit, not the best of men, but he still was a person. This goes back to my point earlier about how killing a dictator is not morally right and just.

  • If we are going to murder dictators for murdering others, then we may as well remove the legal system.

    The reason we murder dictators is because they have murdered others and/or because they are not a good leader. If we are going to murder dictators for being murderers themselves, then we may as well remove the legal system. After all, it's not exactly fair for us to assassinate/murder dictators when we allow or grant other people who have gone against the law a fair trial in court. What's worse than a life sentence in prison? Most dictators are old anyways. It's not like they have very long left to live. Instead of US murdering them, we should let them die a natural death in jail. That way they suffer more. Murdering them is both morally wrong and illegal. A life sentence in prison marks their end anyway. That is a far worse punishment than death.

  • If the assassination of a dictator is considered justifiable, then anyone is liable to be killed if it is in the best interest of another.

    Say our goal was to live in peace and harmony through mutually beneficial trade and respect. Killing a person who disrupts that tranquility would defeat the goal entirely.
    Look at North Korea's so called glorious leader. He is the very embodiment of that disruption. His policies have alienated his country from the rest of the world. Even DPRK's traditional ally, China, has distanced itself, going so far as to impose trade sanctions against it. His people starve, and the only thing his threats do is unify and strengthen his enemies.
    Now imagine him as a martyr of a unified and truly democratic north Korea looking to avenge his death. More than likely, their enemies would be busy killing them instead of making money.
    Since its far easier to control one lunatic, than an entire nation, killing him would be unjustifiable.

  • If we kill dictators, we're just repeating the things the dictator did.

    If we kill dictators, we're just repeating the things the dictator did. Using force to suppress another force isn't a right way. A peace by force doesn't last long since the force just brings another force. Force defeating force, force defeating the force, it will just be like a cycle. We have to solve it peacefully, not by using another extreme force.

  • A

    dictator that puts their own people in firing squads, slave labor, and orders their people to do what is morally wrong should be assassinated, so that a democracy can be achieved. No one person should rule without an opposing point of view, insofar as the people being able to decide what laws are best and who they want to run their government. Good examples of dictators that were assassinated are Saddam Hussein and, to a wider extent, Bin Laden. They encouraged war and terrorism to accomplish world domination.

  • Assassination cannot be justified unless the people are in very severe danger.

    Assassination is evil, by doing it you bring yourself down to the level of the one you're assassinating, if he is really evil. Taking the life of someone just because you want "freedom" is wrong, and not all dictators are evil. It is cowardly, why not imprison them, or revolt instead and bring them to a court trial? The assassination only brings violence, and the party which decided the assassination would be as evil as the dictator himself. You can't just simply deal death to others just because it supports your own point of view.

  • Contrary to U.S. policy, it is wrong to take the life of another person.

    Taking the life of a person is wrong, unless your life is in immediate danger and it is the only option available to survive. Assassinating a dictator cannot ever be justified. Such an action is never selfless, but always selfish. This action is only taken if the assassin has something to gain.

    Posted by: TrashyBrain42
  • Assassinating a dictator leaves a country in Chaos

    After you assassinate a dictator for good reasons, you often don't think about what happens to that country afterwards. There might not be anyone with enough experience to rule the country, which might be worse for that country than having a dictator.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.