This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.27.192.16 (talk) at 16:01, 16 April 2004 (nonsence corrected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:01, 16 April 2004 by 81.27.192.16 (talk) (nonsence corrected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
In its most common use, assassin has come to mean someone who kills (assassinates) people selectively, usually for ideological or political reasons. The immediate motivation for an assassin may be money (in the case of a hit man), opposition to a person's beliefs or belief systems (in the case of a fanatic, for example), orders from a government (often carried about by a subversive agent such as a spy), or loyalty to a competing leader or group.
Assassin, like companion terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, are often considered to be loaded terms; however, the definition of assassin is clearer than others and most assassins appear, publicly, comfortable enough with their deed to describe it as such, whereas few would call themselves a terrorist.
Etymology
The term originally referred to a heretical Islamic order known as the Hashshashin, an offshoot of Ismailism, and originated in a castle called Alamut in the mountains of Northern Iran in the 11th century. The Assassins, as they called themselves, believed it was a religious duty to harass and murder their enemies. After passing through the French or Italian language, the word migrated into English and is recorded in 1603 with reference to the Muslim Assassins.
Marco Polo provided the first western account of the sect, although his 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; all were, nonetheless, forbidden by Islam) then spirited away to a garden stocked with attractive and compliant women and fountains of wine. At this time, they had be awakened and explained 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 as derived from either hasishin for the supposed influence of their attacks and disregard for their own life in the process or hassansin for their leader.
Assassination As a Political Tool
Some would argue that assassination is one of the oldest tools of power politics, dating back to the earliest governments of the world - Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, met his end this way. It is a fact, however, that by the rise of Rome 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 a 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. The commonality of its use was not diminished, however; many heads of state of the time fell at the hands of an assassin's dagger, such as Henri III and Henry IV of France, and Edmund I of England, and tsars Peter III and Alexander II of Russia. There were notable detractors, however; Abd-ul-Mejid of the Ottoman Empire refused to put to death plotters against his life during his reign.
As the world moved through the Renaissance 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 - the most notable within the first century of U.S. history, for example, being president Abraham Lincoln, and that in this period in Europe being the killings of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Nicholas II of Russia, which directly triggered and helped end, respectively, 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), and repeated attempts were made by both the British MI6, the American OSS (later the CIA) and the Soviet KGB to kill Adolf Hitler.
The Cold War and saw a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, likely in large part due 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. Fidel Castro narrowly escaped death on several occasions at the hands of the CIA and CIA backed rebels; 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 Palestine guerrillas, politicians and revolutionaries, though some Israelis argue that the targeted often toed 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. Many allege, however, that this is merely a smokescreen 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 and Palestinians and other Arab nations against Jews in Israel and abroad; The United Kingdom, through its Special Air Service and Force Research Unit have also conducted assassinations of Irish Republican Army members and sympathizers both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world. Many American politicians, especially but not always conservatives, have argued that it is a practical necessity with which to fight the war on terror, war on drugs, etc. which others (often, but not always, liberals) dispute.
Assassination For Money
Individually, too, people have often found reasons to arrange the deaths of others through paid intermediaries. An assassin with no political motive or group loyalty who kills "only" for money is known as a hit man or contract killer.
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 with ties 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 Arta della Guerra -- many analysts hold the belief that such a system would not be of any significant use in a strategic way. In medieval times, for instance, 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 would (and does) have a detrimental effect on morale, the comfort of the cause for which they fight is far more sustainable than such supposedly-transitive loyalty to a single person.
Also, assassinating a military leader runs 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. 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, 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 Lutzen 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's 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 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.
Moral Issues
There is also the issue of moral equivalence when looking at the use of assassination: no state that deliberately trained, hired, sanctioned or harbored an assassin operating outside the rules of war could hope to justify it in such a way that would satisfy its allies and neighbors, much less the affected nations (even though many might use the tactic themselves), argue opponents of "trial, judgment and execution by intelligence" as one one American military officer put it. 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.
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). However, the widespread attention paid to deeds by 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 specter of terrorism, too, often leads many to question why, if it's "us or them", 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 victims).
Techniques
It's 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's 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, 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 a 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'etat.
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 exclusive 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, then, 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 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 no - might be utilized; the sky, as it were, is the limit. Another commmon option is using a sniper rifle. The only difference is that assassins and their deeds are far more public than ever before, owing not only to mass media but also far better security and control over access.
Counter-measures
It would not be a large stretch to say that, in addition to terrorism, politician assassination is one of the biggest concerns of 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), 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. Today, however, such a situation rarely comes to pass; the British Yeomen of the Guard or American Secret Service are noted as a well-trained, and apolitical, protective force.
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, although these are often not worn (or worn unobtrusively) for the benefit of public perception, although some, such as former mayor of Cleveland and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, were nonetheless compelled to do so. 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 of declared antigovernment or anarchist political affiliation 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, in this century and for the foreseeable future, most assassinations will be committed either during a public performance or during transportation, both due to weaker security and security lapses, such as with US President John F. Kennedy or former Beatle John Lennon, or as part of coups d'etat where security is either overwhelmed or completely removed, such as with Salvador Allende or Patrice Lumumba.
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 extremists' 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 Argentinian 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 its more likely that Hughes was concerned for germs than for assassination.
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 that then their success is inevitable. Some of the most notable examples of such committed people would be the ninja of Japan or suicide bombers when used against a leader or official. Often, such people or groups would operate without concern for their own life in order to gain the slimmest 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, later falling victim to it). In the end, however, any counter-measures to a trained or simply zealous killer will be attempts to resist them as best as possible with whatever means are available.
See also
- List of assassins
- List of assassinated persons
- Hashshashin
- assassination market
- asymmetric warfare
- terrorism
- espionage
- Assassin's Guild
External links
Assassins is the name of a 1995 movie starring Antonio Banderas and Sylvester Stallone.
Assassins is also the name of a musical by Stephen Sondheim.
The Assassin is a Prestige class in the computer game, Shadows of Undrentide, which is built using Dungeons & Dragons; see Assassin (D&D).