Misplaced Pages

Assassination: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:29, 8 March 2006 editHumus sapiens (talk | contribs)27,653 edits RM POV tag, added "to save innocent lives"← Previous edit Revision as of 12:26, 8 March 2006 edit undo68.214.35.104 (talk) apologist can't change dictionary definitionsNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
] murdered ], the alleged assassin of U.S. President ], in a very public manner.]] ] murdered ], the alleged assassin of U.S. President ], in a very public manner.]]


In its most common use, '''assassination''' has come to mean the killing of an important person. An assassin — one who carries out the assassination — is usually ]- or ]-motivated. Other motivations may be ] in the case of a ]; opposition to a person's ]s or belief systems in the case of a ]; orders from a ] that are often carried about by a subversive agent such as a ]; or ] to a competing leader or group. Assassination, like companion terms such as ] and ], is often considered to be a ]. However, while few call themselves terrorists, most assassins appear comfortable enough with their deed to describe it as such publicly. ''Targeted killing'' is sometimes preferred by governments, naming a controversial strategy to save innocent lives whereby anticipated acts of ] are prevented by assassinating a person deemed to be related to those acts. According to ''The ]'', "To ] (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons." In its most common use, '''assassination''' has come to mean the murder of an important person. An assassin — one who carries out the assassination — is usually ]- or ]-motivated. Other motivations may be ] in the case of a ]; opposition to a person's ]s or belief systems in the case of a ]; orders from a ] that are often carried about by a subversive agent such as a ]; or ] to a competing leader or group. Assassination, like companion terms such as ] and ], is often considered to be a ]. However, while few call themselves terrorists, most assassins appear comfortable enough with their deed to describe it as such publicly. ''Targeted killing'' is sometimes preferred as a euphemism by some governments to describe their acts of extrajudicial assassination against people they have accused of ].
According to ''The ]'', assassination is defined as "To ] (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons."


==Etymology== ==Etymology==

Revision as of 12:26, 8 March 2006

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|January 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

"Assassin" redirects here. For other uses, see Assassin (disambiguation).
File:Oswald shot by Ruby (Pulitzer).jpg
Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, in a very public manner.

In its most common use, assassination has come to mean the murder of an important person. An assassin — one who carries out the assassination — is usually ideologically- or politically-motivated. Other motivations may be money in the case of a contract killing; opposition to a person's beliefs or belief systems in the case of a fanatic; orders from a government that are often carried about by a subversive agent such as a spy; or loyalty to a competing leader or group. Assassination, like companion terms such as terrorism and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term. However, while few call themselves terrorists, most assassins appear comfortable enough with their deed to describe it as such publicly. Targeted killing is sometimes preferred as a euphemism by some governments to describe their acts of extrajudicial assassination against people they have accused of terrorism.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, assassination is defined as "To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons."

Etymology

The term Assassin originally referred to a Muslim order known as the Hashshashin. According to one derivation, the word means "those who use hashish" (cannabis resin) in Arabic because, according to Crusader histories, that group used to ingest hashish before carrying out military or assassination operations, in order to be fearless. The group, known as the Nizari Ismailis, was a Shia order who believed in the notion of the hazir imam and was organized as a secret underground political order, which infiltrated areas under the control of Seljuk Turks. In 1090 the sect captured a castle called Alamut in the mountains of Northern Iran. This sect was said to carry out assassinations of the enemies of the order, or Muslim rulers they believed to be impious. The earliest known record of the word in English dates back to 1603, referring to this sect rather than its more general modern sense. Similar words had earlier appeared in French and Italian.

However, according to another derivation, the word Hashshashin derives from the Arabic word hassas, from the root hassa, meaning "to shoot".

Another version says that the word Hashshashin has the meaning of followers of Hassan, who would have been the order's first leader and founder.

Benjamin of Tudela provided the first western account of the sect. Marco Polo's elaborate account is probably fictionalized in part. He said that recruits were promised Paradise in return for dying in action. They were drugged, often with materials such as hashish (although some suggest opium and wine instead, despite all three drugs being condemned by Islamic religious authorities and interpretations of the time) then spirited away to a garden stocked with attractive and compliant women and fountains of wine. At this time, they were awakened and it was explained to them that such was their reward for the deed, convincing them that their leader, Hassan-i-Sabah, could open the gates to Paradise. The name assassin is derived from either hasishin for the supposed influence of their attacks and disregard for their own lives in the process, or hassansin for their leader. All this history, however, is tenuous, as it relies entirely on crusader-authored histories which have been traditionally very unreliable for information about native cultures.

Nowadays it is known that "hashishinnya" was an offensive term used to depict this cult by its Muslim and Mongolian detractors; the extreme zeal of Nizarites and the very cold preparation to murder makes it very unlikely they ever used drugs, while there is evidence that one of the first of Hassan's sons was sentenced to death by his father only for drinking a little wine. Moreover, despite many unlikely legends, they usually died along with their target (a tale tells of a mother being sad knowing her son survived a "mission"). As far as known they only used daggers (no other weapons, poison or whatever fictional records make them use) and it seems that they killed only five westerners during the time of the Crusades.

Definition problems

File:King Alexander murdered on 9 oktober 1934.jpg
Assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia

Unlike some topics, notably terrorism, wherein there is a substantial grey area and often bitter controversy between which specific instances qualify or even what standards should be used, the "common sense" classification of assassination stated at the outset of this article seems to stand with few objections. However, this does open larger issues concerning interpretation, notably regarding attempted killings by those with other motives — is it an assassination simply if the person is a major leader or public figure espousing a cause, or only if the assassin's reason for the attack is due to that person's status as a figurehead for a particular issue?

Notable instances in which this definitive problem might come into effect include the attempt on the life of United States President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, who was determined subsequently to have serious psychological problems and publicly stated his intent was to get the attention of actress Jodie Foster rather than make any political statement. The killing of former Beatle John Lennon would raise the same problem — despite Lennon's outspokenness on many liberal political issues, his killer does not seem to have been more than an unstable fan. The use of the term "assassination" to describe Lennon's murder is a matter of some additional debate, since Lennon was primarily an entertainer, not a political figure, and it could be argued that describing his killing as an assassination is no more appropriate than, for example, using the term to describe the murders of singers Selena Quintanilla or Marvin Gaye. In another example, although conspiracy theorists suggest the apparent suicide of Marilyn Monroe might have been a politically motivated murder, the term "assassination" is rarely, if ever, used in this context. The attempt on the life of President Gerald Ford by a member of Charles Manson's cult could be the same; while it might perhaps be considered part and parcel of the anti-government, neo-fascist ideology to which Manson and his group adhered, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, the assassin, was not widely considered legally competent in her judgment at the time (although she was later tried and convicted). Should these cases be classified as attempted assassinations? The issue is further complicated by the fact that while Lennon was likely as outspoken politically as Reagan and Ford, and certainly as famous, Reagan and Ford were elected officials at the time, possibly requiring different criteria for Lennon's case.

One can take one of three positions (note that this consideration is of necessity strictly based upon language, not law): that the killing of someone only for political, moral, or ideological reasons constitutes an assassination (hence neither Reagan nor Lennon were the victims of assassins' attacks, while Ford was), that the killing of someone serving in politics or public office counts (thus Reagan's and Ford's attackers were would-be assassins, while Lennon's killer was not), or that anyone with a significant level of political involvement would be an assassination victim in the event of their murder (in which case all three instances would be assassinations or attempts).

While it must be acknowledged that attempting to read a person's thoughts is both imperfect and somewhat antithetical to the nature of such an issue, for the purposes of this article, the first, most conservative definition is taken. Although it is likely that the second is the most popular, the first is technically the most correct, and the third is generally considered to be too general in application. Therefore, all assassinations or attempts mentioned in the article will strictly follow the guidelines outlined at the outset to prevent confusion.

Assassinations in history

Ancient history

Some would argue that assassination is one of the oldest tools of power politics, dating back to the earliest governments of the world.

Towards the end of the Warring States Period (3rd century BC) in China, the state Qin rose to hegemony over other states. The Prince of the state Yan felt the threat and sought to remove the Qin king (later Qin Shi Huang) and sent Jing Ke for the mission. The assassination attempt was foiled and Jing Ke was killed on the spot.

Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, can be viewed as a victim of assassination. It is a fact, however, that by the fall of the Roman Republic assassination had become a commonly-accepted tool towards the end not only of improving one's own position, but to influence policy — the killing of Gaius Julius Caesar being a notable example, though many Emperors met such an end. In whatever case, there seems to have not been a good deal of moral indignation at the practice amongst the political circles of the time, save, naturally, by the affected.

As the Middle Ages came about from the fall of the Roman Empire, the moral and ethical dimensions of what was before a simple political tool began to take shape. Although in that period intentional regicide was an extremely rare occurrence, the situation changed dramatically with the Renaissance when the ideas of tyrannomachy (i.e. killing of a King when his rule becomes tyrannical) re-emerged and gained recognition. Many a head of state of the time fell at the hands of an assassin, such as Henri III and Henry IV of France. There were notable detractors, however; Abd-ul-Mejid of the Ottoman Empire refused to put to death plotters against his life during his reign.

Modern history

File:Shot Dead on Arrival.JPG
Ninoy Aquino, Philippines' President Ferdinand Marcos' top political nemesis, was shot dead by an alleged assassin in 1983, who was later killed by military escorts of Aquino. Investigations later concluded that one of the escorts shot the late senator.

As the world moved into the present day and the stakes in political clashes of will continued to grow to a global scale, the number of assassinations concurrently multiplied. In Russia alone, five emperors were assassinated within less than 200 years - Ivan VI, Peter III, Paul I, Alexander II and Nicholas II. The most notable assassination victim within early U.S. history was President Abraham Lincoln. Three other U.S. Presidents have been assassinated: James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. An assassination plot against Jefferson Davis, known as the Dahlgren Affair, may have been initiated during the American Civil War. In Europe the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered World War I. However, the 20th century likely marks the first time nation-states began training assassins to be specifically used against so-called enemies of the state. During World War II, for example, MI6 trained a group of Czechoslovakian operatives to kill the Nazi general Reinhard Heydrich (who did later perish by their efforts - see Operation Anthropoid), and repeated attempts were made by both the British MI6, the American Office of Strategic Services (later the Central Intelligence Agency) and the Soviet SMERSH to kill Adolf Hitler.

Cold War

The Cold War saw a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, likely due in large part to the ideological polarization of most of the First and Second worlds, whose adherents were more than willing to both justify and finance such killings. During the Kennedy era Fidel Castro narrowly escaped death on several occasions at the hands of the CIA (a function of the agency's "executive action" program) and CIA-backed rebels (there are accounts that exploding clams and poisoned shoes were employed); some allege that Salvador Allende of Chile was another example, though specific proof is lacking. At the same time, the KGB made creative use of assassination to deal with high-profile defectors such as Georgi Markov, and Israel's Mossad made use of such tactics to eliminate Palestinian guerrillas, politicians and revolutionaries, though some Israelis argue that the targeted often crossed the line between one or another or were even all three.

Most major powers were not long in repudiating such tactics, for example during the presidency of Gerald Ford in the United States in 1976 (Executive Order 12333, which proscription was relaxed however by the George W. Bush administration). Many allege, however, that this is merely a smoke screen for political and moral benefit and that the covert and illegal training of assassins by major intelligence agencies continue, such as at the School of the Americas run by the United States. In fact, the debate over the use of such tactics is not closed by any means; many accuse Russia of continuing to practice it in Chechnya and against Chechens abroad, as well as Israel in Palestine and against Palestinians abroad (as well as those Mossad deems a threat to Israeli national security, as in the aftermath of the Munich Massacre during "Operation Wrath of God"). Besides Palestine Liberation Organization members assassinated abroad, Tsahal has also often targeted Hamas activists in the Gaza strip.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

See also IDF: Code of Conduct against terrorists

In the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) employed what they call "focused foiling" (Template:Lang-he sikul memukad) against those who has been proven to have intentions of performing a specific act of violence in the very near future or to be linked indirectly with several acts of violence (organizing, planning, researching means of destruction etc), thus raising the likelihood that his or her assassination would foil similar activities in the future. Usually, the strike is carried out by Israeli Air Force attack helicopters that fire guided missiles toward the target, after the Shin Bet supplies intelligence for the target.

The exact nature of said proof in focused foiling situations is both controversial and classified, as it involves clandestine military intelligence oriented means and operational decisions made by intelligence officers and commanders rather than being a part of a published justice system executed by lawyers and judges.

The IDF claims that targeted killings are only pursued to prevent future terrorism acts, not as revenge for past activities. It also claims that this practice is only used when there is absolutely no practical way of foiling the future acts by other means (e.g., arrest) with minimal risk to the soldiers or civilians. Finally, IDF claims that the practice is only used when there is a certainty in the indentification of the target, in order to minimize harm to innocent bystanders. However, these IDF claims have never been monitored or validated by an independent authority, and the IDF deliberations about the killings remain secret. Moreover, actual injury and death of innocent bystanders, unintended as they may be, remains a strong claim by opponents of these targeted killings.

Targeted killings are largely supported by Israeli society to various extents, but there are exceptions: In 2003, 27 IAF Air Force pilots composed a letter of protest to the Air Force commander Dan Halutz, announcing their refusal to continue and perform attacks on targets within Palestinian population centers, and claiming that the occupation of the Palestinians "morally corrupts the fabric of Israeli society". This letter, the first of its kind emanating from the Air Force, evoked a storm of political protest in Israel, with most circles condemning it as dereliction of duty. IDF ethics forbid soldiers from making public political affiliations, and subsequently the IDF chief of staff announced that all the signatories would be suspended from flight duty, after which some of the pilots recanted and removed their signature.

Some of the best known targeted killings by Israeli military were Hamas leaders Salah Shahade (July 2002), Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (March 2004), Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi (April 2004) and Adnan al-Ghoul (October 2004).

While the term "targeted killing" is mostly used within the context of the Al-Aqsa Intifada by airborne attacks, Israeli security forces have reportedly assassinated top terrorists in the past, although this was never confirmed officially. Some of the best known operations include:

United States

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which codified a policy first laid down in 1976 by the Ford administration. It stated, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

In 1986, the American air strikes against Libya included an attack on the barracks where Muammar Qaddafi was known to be sleeping. During the 1991 Gulf War, the United States struck many of Iraq’s most important command bunkers with bunker-busting bombs in hopes of killing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Since the rise of al-Qaeda, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have backed targeted killings. In 1998, in retaliation for the al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa, the Clinton administration launched cruise missiles against a training camp in Afghanistan where bin Laden had been hours before. Reportedly, the United States nearly killed the leader of Taliban, Mullah Omar, with a Predator-launched Hellfire missile on the first night of Operation Enduring Freedom. In May 2002, the CIA launched a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone in an effort to kill the Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

On November 3, 2002, a US Central Intelligence Agency-operated RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fired a Hellfire missile that destroyed a car carrying six suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. The target of the attack was Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, the top al-Qaida operative in Yemen. Among those killed in the attack was a US citizen, Yemeni-American Ahmed Hijazi.

According to Bush administration, the killing of an American in this fashion was legal. "I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials. He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority," said Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser. ,

During the press-conference, the US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that Washington's reasons for opposing the targeted killings of Palestinians might not apply in other circumstances and denied allegation that by staging the Yemen operation the US may be using double standards towards Israeli policy: "We all understand the situation with regard to Israeli-Palestinian issues and the prospects of peace and the prospects of negotiation... and of the need to create an atmosphere for progress... A lot of different things come into play there... Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed."

On December 3, 2005, the US was blamed for another incident, in which alleged al-Qaeda #3 man (operations chief Abu Hamza Rabia) was reportedly killed in Pakistan by an airborne missile, together with four associates. However Pakistani officials claim the group was killed while preparing explosives, not from any targeted military operation (, ). The US has made no official comment about the incident.

On January 13, 2006 US CIA-operated unmanned Predator drones launched four Hellfire missiles into the Pakistani village of Damadola, about 7 km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border, killing at least 18 people. The attack targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri who was thought to be in the village. Pakistani officials later said that al-Zawahiri was not there and that the U.S. had acted on faulty intelligence.

See War on Terrorism

Russia

File:Death of Inejiro Asanuma.jpg
The assassination of Japanese politician Inejiro Asanuma, caught on camera.

The Russian Federation employed similar strategy in the course of its Chechen Wars, targeting the leaders of separatist movement. Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudaev was killed by an air strike of Russian Air Force on April 21, 1996 and Aslan Maskhadov was killed on March 8, 2005.

"When terrorists feel they are literally being trailed, fighting groups are systematically being detained, when in fact a top leader is eliminated, this creates an atmosphere in which there’s no place for terrorist attacks,” said Vladimir Vasilyev, head of the security committee of the lower house of the Russian State Duma.


Assassination for money

Individually, too, people have often found reasons to arrange the deaths of others through paid intermediaries. One who kills with no political motive or group loyalty who kills only for money is known as a hitman or contract killer. Note that by the definition accepted above, while such a killer is not, strictly speaking, an assassin, if the killing is ordered and financed towards a political end, then that killing must rightly be termed an assassination, and the hitman an assassin by extension (in the same way that a Manchurian Candidate-style killer would be an assassin because, though they have been brainwashed to kill and have therefore no political aims, those that brainwashed them do have such aims, and if the killing can be termed an assassination, the killer must be an assassin).

Entire organizations have sometimes specialized in assassination as one of their services, to be gained for the right price. Besides the original hashshashin, the ninja clans of Japan were rumored to perform assassinations — though it can be pointed out that most of what was ever known about the ninja was rumor and hearsay. In the United States, Murder Incorporated, an organization partnered to the Mafia, was formed for the sole purpose of performing assassinations for organized crime. In Russia, the vory (thieves), their version of the Mafia, are often known to provide assassinations for the right price, as well as engaging in it themselves for their own purposes.

Assassination as military doctrine

While assassination for military purposes has long been espoused — Sun Tzu argued for such in The Art of War, as did Machiavelli in his The Prince — In medieval times, an army and even a nation might be based upon and around a particularly strong, canny or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war. However, in modern warfare a soldier's mindset is generally considered to surround ideals far more than specific leaders. Theoretically, while the death of a soldier's leader definitely has a detrimental effect on morale, the cause for which they fight is at times strong enough to push through the loss of leadership.

It can be argued that, assassinating a military leader may run the risk of eliminating a later advocate of peace. As many would argue that military leaders, seeing the face of warfare and bearing a clearer sense of the war effort's effects, have more sagacity on the subject. There is the risk that the target may be an incompetent and could be replaced by a more competent leader. Not only that, but worse, there is a high chance such a killing will be treated as not only reinforcing evidence of the opponents' moral bankruptcy, but also "martyr" the leader, increasing their charisma posthumously and rallying still others to an enemy cause and hardening the enemies' resolve to fight — and resist entreaties to peace (indeed, the death in battle of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, while not an assassination, led directly to the Catholic defeat at Lützen as the infuriated Swedes rallied behind their fallen leader). Such an effect can be extremely detrimental to a group or state, but supporters might argue in return that when faced with a particularly brilliant leader, there is no choice but to take the chance and, essentially, hope for a more mediocre successor (one might use the example of the many attempts to kill the Athenian Alcibiades during the Peloponnesian War, the American shooting down of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during World War II, or arguably Henri IV of France). Also, they might note that in a time-sensitive situation, such a killing could be useful if only to briefly buy time for a more permanent and effective plan to be set into motion or stall an army as reinforcements rush to the area. Another situation where assassination might have been beneficial, would have been the early assassination of Osama Bin Laden, which might have saved thousands of lives from the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

There are a number of examples from World War II, the last total war, which show how assassination can be used as an effective military tool both at a tactical and strategic level. The American's perception that Skorzeny's commandos were trying to assassinate Eisenhower during the Battle of the Bulge shows that military assassination, or the threat of it, if well timed can be a very effective tactical move. In an interview with the New York Times Skorzeny denied that he had ever intended to assassinate Eisenhower and could prove it. (page 155, Commando Extraordinary, by Charles Foley). There is also a mention in the same book (Page 35) of a British commando raid to "capture" Rommel. If he had been removed from the board, then that might well have had strategic effects. The British, too, decided not to try to assassinate Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr (German military intelligence), because to do so might have improved the service.

Moral issues

Moral equivalence is also important when examining the use of assassination. Opponents of what one American officer called "trial, judgment and execution by intelligence" argue that no state deliberately training, hiring, sanctioning or harbouring an assassin could hope to justify it in such a way that would satisfy its allies and neighbours, much less the affected countries (even though many might use the tactic themselves). In democracies this issue is particularly crucial; much of the impetus for engaging in military action in such states is the motivation of perceived righteousness fighting a brutal enemy, an opinion that is undermined if one's nation is actively and openly engaged in killings outside the laws of war. Many would argue that the negative morale effects alone would outweigh any possible benefits. Therefore a severe injustice is done if a self-proclaimed democracy calls another authority names and mount assassination plots. Furthermore, opponents of assassination underline that it is essentially the death penalty stripped of the normal judicial safeguards that limit its use. Second, opponents of assassination question its effectiveness. Most conventional military and political organizations are robust so that the death of the leader would not cause them to collapse. Furthermore, using assassination against a terrorist or guerrilla organization may result in the complete elimination of the known leaders of that organization, but create a set of unknown leaders who cannot then be located. Finally, assassination makes a negotiation of surrender impossible. Near the end of World War II, for example, Allied forces made specific efforts not to target the political and military leadership of the Axis Powers specifically so that there would be someone to authorize a surrender.

Supporters of assassination as a policy reply, however, that often the killing of one problematic figure can spare countless lives and years — or even decades — of warfare. An example often cited is the question of what might have come to pass had Adolf Hitler been assassinated in 1935. Countless millions, the argument goes, would have been spared had only such intervention been taken. However, it could be argued that Adolf Hitler was just one man in a Nazi Party of hundreds, and his successor may be just as brutal (not to mention vengeful). Furthermore, it can be argued that this logic would not only justify killing Hitler in 1935 but also killing Adolf in his crib as an innocent infant.

However, the widespread attention paid to deeds by those branded as "dictators" such as Saddam Hussein and Idi Amin is seen by many as another persuasive argument towards the necessity of eliminating such individuals. The increasing spectre of terrorism, too, often leads many to question why, if it is "kill or be killed", there should be any delay in taking such action (an opponent would likely be quick to reply, however, that such an action alone leads to the loss of moral equivalence, proving their above argument, although a likely counter could be that moral equivalence is of little use to either a terrorist or one of their dead victims).

Others point out that this point of view may create an unwanted slippery slope, since there may be no difference in principle between assassination intended to save millions of lives, and assassination in order to accomplish an insignificant political goal. For a possible example of the latter sort, see Pat Robertson's comments concerning his advocacy of the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez.

Techniques

It is entirely likely that the first strategy used by a political or religious killer was a remarkably simple one: find the leader and stab or bludgeon them to death with whatever weapons were available. This would likely have occurred only in close-knit groups where security was not thought needed, such as amongst nomadic or early sedentary peoples in Mesopotamia where disagreements would be solved with vigilantism (however it is important to note that information from this far back is very sketchy and debatable in nature). As civilization took root, however, any leaders in groups began to have more and more a position of importance, and they would become more detached from the groups they ruled. For the first time, subterfuge would become a major factor in engaging in assassination.

From ancient times, then, through to the medieval period, as the rate of technology was slow so, too, would be the changes in assassins' tactics. Infiltration was now the name of the game, and commonly a would-be killer would attempt to gain access to an official or person's guard or staff and utilize a variety of methods for exterminating them, be it the same close-contact stabbing or smothering or a more advanced method, such as using poison to induce death. This, however, must be distinguished from efforts by a person or group to remove a person in order to replace them in the power structure; for more on this, see coup d'état.

With the advent of gunpowder and far more effective ranged weaponry, however, bodyguards were no longer enough to hold back determined killers, who no longer needed to directly engage or even subvert the guard to kill the leader in question; it could be done from a great distance in a crowded square or even at a church, as with the Pazzi Conspiracy, for example. Often, muskets or rifles might be used to take down a leader from a rooftop, at greater distance, dramatically increasing the chances for survival of an assassin. Also, explosives became increasingly en vogue for deeds requiring a larger touch; for an example of this, see the article on the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament on the state opening.

In whatever case, it is interesting to note that just because more modern methods of killing became available does not mean older ones were replaced; indeed, in nations like India killings by knife or sword remain quite popular, as they do in sub-Saharan Africa (for example, with the machete). In fact, since the development of gunpowder each region of the world seems to have its preferred methods of contract murder; besides those mentioned, explosives are quite popular in not only the Middle East but in most of Europe as well, save Northern Europe where shootings become more common, whereas in the Americas assassinations are almost exclusively performed by gunshot. One can make various cases for any of these, including range, detectability, concealability, likelihood of kill, etc.

As the Renaissance gave way to the Industrial Revolution, assassination became more and more sophisticated, right up to today. Explosives, especially the car bomb, became far more common, and grenades and landmines were not unheard of either, especially in the Middle East and Balkans (the initial attempt on Archduke Franz Ferdinand's life was with a grenade; he was on his way to visit an aide injured in the first attack when his driver stopped to ask directions and he and his wife were shot). Also, Rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) became an especially useful tool, given the popularity of armored cars discussed below. Today, any manner of different techniques for the elimination of an enemy - popular or not - might be utilized; the sky, as it were, is the limit. One remarkable recent example involved a political figure who made the mistake of keeping to a regular route and schedule. Assassins were able to plan for his travel, and detonated an explosive charge beside the roadway, which propelled a metal plate through the target's vehicle at lethal speed, killing him.

One option glamorized in the media is using a sniper rifle, such as the L96. The problem with this method is that using a sniper rifle generally attracts the attention of police and government authorities, which every smart bounty-hunter wishes to avoid. A far more useful tool is the handgun. Deployed correctly and left at the scene of the incident, the completion of the contract can even be portrayed as a suicide.

Counter-measures

It would not be a large stretch to say that, in addition to terrorism, political assassination is one of the biggest threats to any modern state and its government. As such, the measures to which a leader goes to avoid professional killers ranges from what an average person would consider to be farcical to the paranoid to the downright bizarre. Many would argue, though, that such measures are a lot more effective than they first appear, and that in the world of a new threat seemingly each week, no security is too much.

One of the earliest forms of defense against assassins is without doubt the bodyguard. Essentially, the bodyguard functions as a counter-assassin, attempting to neutralize the killer before they can make contact with or inflict harm upon the "principal", or protected/targeted official. This function was often executed by the leader's most loyal warriors, and was extremely effective throughout most of early human history, to the point where a direct assassination had to be replaced with carefully-planned subterfuge, such as poison (which was answered by the food taster such as the Beefeaters protecting the English monarchs), and even then such methods were often thwarted. Notable examples of bodyguards would include the Roman Praetorian Guard or the Ottoman janissaries — although, in both cases, it should be noted that the protectors often became assassins themselves, exploiting their power to make the head of state a virtual hostage at their whim or eliminating threatening leaders altogether. Indeed, assassinations both then and today are most often effective when they have the support, tacit or open, of other powerful figures. This is less a concern in the West, where organizations such as the British Special Branch and American Secret Service are noted as well-trained and apolitical protective forces. Disloyal protectors continue to be a problem in developing nations, however; Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi met such an end in 1984.

The race was on with the Middle Ages between leaders and assassins as gunpowder became predominant, each in turn trying to develop stronger and better checks against the increasing abilities of the other. One of the first reactions was to simply increase the guard, creating what at times might seem a small army trailing every leader; another was to begin clearing large areas whenever a leader was present, to the point where entire sections of a city might be shut down. Heads of state began to cease taking their armies onto the field personally around this time as well, although this was likely as much due to the increasing skills required for generalship and division of power within the government as it was for safety concerns.

As the 20th century dawned, the prevalence of assassins and their capabilities skyrocketed, and so did measures to protect against them. For the first time, armored cars or armored limousines were put into service for safer transport, with modern versions rendering them virtually invulnerable to small arms fire. Bulletproof vests were also commissioned, though not often used for political reasons. Access to famous persons, too, became more and more restrictive; potential visitors would be forced through dozens of different checks and double-checks before being granted access to the official in question, and as communication became better and information technology more prevalent, it has become next-to-impossible for a would-be killer to get close enough to the personage at work to effect an attempt on his or her life, especially given the common use of metal and bomb detectors. As such most modern assassinations have been committed either during a public performance or during transport, both due to weaker security and security lapses, such as with US President John F. Kennedy or as part of coups d'état where security is either overwhelmed or completely removed, such as with Patrice Lumumba and possibly also Salvador Allende.

Some of the wilder and arguably stranger methods used for protection by famous people of both today and yesterday have evoked many reactions from different people, some resenting the separation from their officials or major figures, some comforted by the security and some lamenting the state of society that such measures are necessary. One example might be traveling in a car protected by a bubble of clear bulletproof glass, such as the Popemobile of Pope John Paul II (built following an extremist's attempt at his life). Frederick William I of Prussia had an entire command of soldiers above two meters of height, and would reportedly go to great lengths to obtain more. Many leaders, such as Josef Stalin or the Argentinean junta were so possessed by paranoia that they executed their opponents en masse, with the death toll ranging from hundreds to millions. Still others go into seclusion, rarely heard from or seen in public afterwards, such as writer Salman Rushdie or eccentric inventor Howard Hughes, though it is more likely that Hughes was concerned about germs than about assassination. A more exotic form of protection is the use of a body double. A body double in this case is a person who is built similar to the person he is expected to protect and made up to look like him. The body double then takes the place of the person in high risk situations. Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein are known to have used body doubles.

It is important to note that, in the final analysis, it is thought by many that if a person or group is committed beyond reason or concerns for self-preservation towards the removal of a certain person or leader from not only their position but this plane of existence, then the chances are better than fair that any security measures taken will come to naught. The ninja of Japan and suicide attackers are both groups known for pursuing every avenue for however long necessary to accomplish their 'hit'. Often, such people or groups would operate without concern for their own life in order to gain the slightest chance of eliminating their mark. Certain leaders, notably Abraham Lincoln, were thought to have wrestled with this supposed inevitability during difficult times (with some, like Lincoln's, proving prophetic). In the end it comes down to will - if the will of the would-be assassins to execute their target surpasses that of their security to save them, or the will of the targeted person to survive, then success for a killer may be a matter of time.

See also


Related lists

External links

Categories: