I think there are times when a nice quiet assassination is probably the way to go... especially when it circumvents a not-so-nice, not-so-quiet war...

Of course. If all morality is relative, it just depends on a majority to sanction it.

People can justify anything but justification is a point of view. People have different points of view so justification to one person maybe not be justification to another. So yes assassination of a dictator can be justified but not to every single person.

If the dictator is killing innocent people, then it is justified.

It depends on the circumstances.

Robert Mugabe? - Yes.

However justifying the use of assassination means that it will be practiced more and more often - leading to instances where it will generally be abused.

Almost anything can be justified. If you want to do something bad enough, you'll be able to convince others it's necessary. So, yes the assassination of a dictator can also be justified.

I, for one, believe that if the majority of people is being suppressed and abused in a regime run by 1 person's rules, then go for it. Kill the bastard. However, does this make the people of that nation stronger (so that they can prevent a different dictator to take power in the future)? No, it doesn't. So, to prevent a new dictatorship, you'll have the massive task of educating the people and encouraging them to exercise their people power. That would justify killing a dictator.

So to sum up: Yes, it can be justified. But it can be justified only by the goal of making the people stronger in the end in order to prevent another dictatorship from existing.

Yes, the assasination of a dictator can be justified, although the act of assasination may still be condemnable. History have been witness to dictators (or maybe just Hitler) who have unjustly oppressed and murdered people, restricting them of the chance to live in freedom and peace of mind. And probably the most efficient way to allow ourselves ,if we happened to have lived under his reign, once again the chance to live in peace and freedom of mind is to assasinate the dictator himself.

Being a dictator, he/she have ultimate control of the economy and military arms of the country, which will give the citizens a grave disadvantage. Using other peaceful and less violent means to make the dictator stop will be futile, because the dictator can simply kill you at his discretion.

Besides, if we are to use the utilitarian judgment, the murder of a person who have caused the death or oppression of a thousand and will cause the death and suffering of another thousand soon will be of greater good to those who are still alive in his reign.

Of course, this judgment only under the assumption and prejudice that a dictator is someone who is as fierce as Hitler. Yet, if our dictator is someone who does not employ destructive means to enforce his reign (he may use force, but he does not do mass murders and the such), surely it could be more efficient if we just have to make a majority movement to change the government, not murder. Besides, he is a person, and we have ascribed the right to live to every person that exists. So, the act itself may still be condemned.

So, yes, a assasination of a dictator can be justified, but the act itself may or may not still be subject to condemnation.

I'm going to say yes, but I'm on the fence. In the U.S it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow a bad government. I don't think that people should kill though. That doesn't seem like a very great way of getting the job done, but it will get it done. There may be a more peaceful way to get it done.

Some people just need killin'.

Dictators who are total assholes and slaughter their own people and horde money should probably be taken out, yes.

unfortunately I think it can for example, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and many others who take the power the people have given them and exploit it for their own personal gain. Bush is not in this category.

unfortunately I think it can for example, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and many others who take the power the people have given them and exploit it for their own personal gain. Bush is not in this category.

Always dictators are cruel to the people.. they harass the people, torture them and extract everything from them and at last almost kill them..........it is better to kill such dictators.........

As aforementioned, killing someone who is killing the innocent is justified. And not accidentally killing someone. Making an innocent die by a dictator on purpose is what justifies the assassination of them.

The elimination of a dictator can often become the only available option. IF AND ONLY IF all other peaceful routes have failed, assassination should become an option. In the case of terrorist leaders, such as Osama Bin Laden, peaceful solutions are out of the question due to religious zealotry. Men such as this, who will cost the world hundreds, if not thousands, of lives due to their actions and plans, should not be allowed the time to see their designs come to fruition. They forfeited their right to life after they began taking the lives of others with indiscriminate ease.

Who says murder is wrong at all? Who decided that in the first place? Why are we listening to them? Why are we brainwashing our kids to listen to them as well?

If all they did with the power they had was oppress the people under them then yes it is justified. Sorry but Saddam was a sadistic little weasel.

Apparently, under the delusional perception of possessing WMDs with only unilateral support, the Bush administration had justification.

If you make up evidence and convince the world by attacking a sovereign nation, then yes

The fact of the matter is the United States can't play big brother for forever otherwise, it will catch up to in fast in the future.

Why must it only be a dictator? Next, the assassination of a left/right wing politician, then the assassination of a mayor - can murder be justified? Many people who live under dictators (Hitler, for example) rather like them. How many people liked George W. Bush, and he wasn't even a dicator - rather the president elected by the people for the people yadda yadda yadda.

If the assumptions are made that democracy is the preferable form of government and that the dictator is tyrannical and harmful, then the assassination of a dictator is not the solution to the problem.

It is important to note that not all dictators are bad for their countries. For example, Stalin, despite being ruthless and cruel, made the Soviet Union into a superpower that helped defeat fascism and has provided continued economic benefits all over Europe and central Asia to this day. Killing Stalin wouldn't have really solved anything.

Despite Stalin's strength as a leader, it was ultimately the failings of the system that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Killing the leader doesn't change the country, the solution to dictatorships is a re-structuring of government. In Russia, the collapse of the soviet system did not cause the death of their premier, just as the death of the premier would not cause a change in the system.

you people think you have the intellect to argue with a dictator, they are smart people you know. They are from a completely different "paradigm" or frame of thought than us. Seriously, you think you could come up with better ideas than these people, you should be ashamed of yourself, people with unintellible arguments, minds which are led by emotion and who think they can talk as if they knew it all.