Would the US be morally justified in assasinating world leaders?
Yes
Side Score: 2
|
No
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
1
point
|
The purpose of assassinations is that it's the US going beyond what is considered morally justifiable in order to achieve a goal. In the real world, world leaders accept that reality is scary and not fair at all. So, they often will do things under the table in order to try and make things better (as for what they believe). When they do things, they are ready to accept the consequences if they are ever caught. A similar scenario would be MK Ultra... or even the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro if we wanted assassination examples. Do I agree with assassinating world leaders? At first glance, my automatic answer will be no. I don't like the idea of my government breaking International law... especially if they get caught. But if they ever did kill Castro, I wouldn't have a problem with it. but that's because I know exactly how evil Castro and his regime are. It's all subjective. Most would agree with the assassination of Hitler because it's politically correct to believe that. At the same time, though, it's politically correct to believe that assassinations are wrong; so instead of accepting this, the PC crowd will look to other leaders who have not yet been harshly judged by history such as Mahmoud or Kim Jon Il. If we want to really know if the US is justified at all in assassinating world leaders (whether they attempt it, should attempt it, or did it) we would really need to wait until history judges it. But as long as the law is being broken, they can't just "get away with it". my advice for the government; if they're gonna do it, they better cover their tracks. Side: No
1
point
|