Has being a Bond fan made you a supporter of extra-judicial killing?

Silhouette Man

Full title: Has being a Bond fan made you a supporter of extra-judicial killing/state-sponsored assassination?

I've been thinking about this a lot of late so I thought I would start a thread on it to gauge the views of other Bond fans. I realise that the subject matter is a little bit controversial. The thread is not meant to invoke controversy, however. Let me say that from the get-go.

What I want to know is does your being a literary/cinematic James Bond fan make you more in favour of state-sponsored assassination (also referred to as extra-judicial killing) by spies/secret agents/special forces etc. against certain individuals (a recent example in the Navy SEALS assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011). President George W. Bush wanted the CIA agents to have a "licence to kill" in the hunt for Osama bin Laden after the Al-Queada September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the attempt to crash into the White House:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/22/afghanistan.terrorism6

Obviously, Ian Fleming came up with the idea of the "licence to kill in the line of duty" first and no doubt based it on his wartime experiences as Assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence for the duration of World War II and in particular on his 'Red Indians' in the 30 Assault Unit as well as with the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Ian Fleming himself famously suggested several ways that the CIA might assassinate Fidel Castro (including making his beard fall out and giving him explosive cigars).

There were several plots to kill Hitler during World War II and the SOE trained the two assassins who killed Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in the then Czechoslovakia (but which had the terrible consequence of the vengeful Nazis obliterating the Czech town of Lidice and everybody and everything in it).

On the other (anti-Western) side of the coin, during the Cold War the Soviets of course murdered defectors and traitors and we see this happening more recently in the cases of the Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov in September 1978 in London with a pellet containing the toxin ricin fired from an umbrella and Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006 with the radioactive poison Polonium 210, only to be found in Russian scientific labs. SMERSH was of course a Soviet liquidation organ of terror during World War II and it found its equivalents in the NKVD and the KGB (and perhaps even the FSB).


So, are we as Bond fans in favour of state assassination by the UK, the US or their allies (which is of course against international and state law which forbids assassination as a state policy) or are we opposed to it? Is it better for it to remain in James Bond's fictional world or should it encroach into the real world that we, as Bond fans, inhabit?

Either way, I'd love top hear your views as I'm greatly interested in this as a topic of discussion.

Personally, I'm in favour of a controlled level of state assassination such as in the cases of Hitler or more recently Osama bin Laden but that said I of course realise there are inherent dangers if this evil power is abused by a government or intelligence chiefs. I'm against the use of the death penalty, however, as I see that as a separate matter and anyway too many innocents have lost their lives in the past.

I hope that we can all have a civil discussion about this, as I feel it is important. -{

Thunderpussy

Very tough question SM. My instinct is to say no problem, a terrorist is a terrorist
Of whatever political persuasion or nationality, and if it saves lives that can only be a
Good thing. Although I do feel the politicians who order these sections should be held to
Account ( not the solders in evolved, as they're simply carrying out orders ) if it turns
Out to be false information and some innocent is killed.
So basically if they can prove to some extent the involvement of a person, and it
Would stop an attack and save lives then, yes I would sanction some extra-judicial
Killing.
Although any action would have to be approved by some security board, who would
Have to be accountable to the government, as we can't have it escalating to killing
Political opponents or political trouble makers.

Sir Hillary Bray

My simple answer:

1) I am not opposed to extra-judicial assassination as a concept, especially with the lines of what constitutes a "war" becoming more and more blurred. That said, there need to be checks and balances on when and how such measures are applied.

2) My Bond fandom has no impact on my view on #1.

3) FWIW, I am also against the death penalty as a punishment for crime, at least within the domestic process of jurisprudence of a given country.

M.

Being a Bond fan has no influence on my thoughts on this subject.
I'm of the opinion that as long as they are carried out correctly and for the right reasons then I have no issues with it.
After all terrorists have no qualms with killing for their cause.

Barbel

As has been said above, my being a Bond fan has no impact or influence on my private views concerning this matter.

(Much as I have no desire to leap from a helicopter or fire a PPK, despite very much enjoying watching 007 do them regularly.)

As I just said above, they are private views.

AlphaOmegaSin

The same as above, me being a Bond Fan has had no Impact on my Views on the Subject.

Absolutely_Cart

Like Barbel said, Bond doesn't really affect my views. But if anything, it's the other thing around. Full-on pacifists probably won't find Bond as interesting as a military buff would.

I personally believe that targeted assassinations can be justified in some circumstances and are less harmful than a full-scale conflict.

The Domino Effect

It's always about the in-laws with you, isn't it Silhouette Man )

Just kidding.

Bond films/Fleming books have had no influence on my opinions at all, they are just thoroughly good entertainment and I enjoy the slice of 1950s/60s life that the books provide. That said, I agree with most of what others have already said. I am not opposed to carefully planned and cautiously approved operations against certain targets but the individuals who are tasked with the operations should never be held accountable as long as they stick to their orders.

always shaken

Yes im sure in a knee jerk reaction ,when we read horror stories in the press ,"let the police shoot them ,that will save money"
but where will it stop ,look theres a Irish bloke over there taking photos ,bang bang your dead ,Oh sorry Mrs Thunderpussy on behalf of her majestys govt ,we are very sorry ect ect ,look at the balls up (in hind sight ) of the Jean Charles de Menezez operation ,we still don't know wether he was or wasn't . As bad as it is ,we need to have a rule of law , or all hell will break out.
question would you trust George Bush to decide who too kill , I woudnt trust the Bushes to put the cat out .

Thunderpussy

Bloody hell AS, my photography isn't that bad ! )

AlphaOmegaSin

Your'd be surprised

Thunderpussy

As I said in my post, I can see its uses and so long as those who order these
Actions are accountable, then sad thought it is. If it stops a bombing then OK.

Number24

I don't think being a Bond fan has influenced my views on the subject. In a perfect world extra-judicial killings would be unneccary. But If there is no realistic way to arrest and convict the person and the crimes are horrible enough and proven beyond question, it might be supportable. OBL killing is a textbook case. During WWII many assasinations happened in Norway, mostly against people infiltrating the resistance on behalf of the Gestapo or torturists. But some assasinations are still controversial, since they had elements of personal grudges or mistaken identity. Mistaken identity was also the case in the only extra-judicial killing in this country in modern times. You may have heard of the assasinations conducted by Mossad after the Munich massacre, or at least seen the Spielberg movie. I understand some of the targets were chosen based on how reasable they were and less on how involved they were in terrorism. This was not the case with Ali Hassan Salameh, one of the leaders of Black September. Mossad tracked him to Lillehammer, Norway, and killed him. But in reality they killed and innocent waiter in front of his pregnant wife.

In my opinion extra-judicial killings can be justified, but they must be used very sparingly and the pitfalls are many and horrible.
Also, we like it when the US are doing it. But think of some of the assasinations done by countries like Russia (the dangers of eating sushi ). Who would China like to kill? Because if the US can do it, why can't they?

chrisisall

No. Bond, much like Dirty Harry or Batman, is a character of almost unerring ability to identify the bad guys, and deal with them accordingly. In real life the lines are often blurred and hard targets are few & far between. The wild west mentality of shoot first & ask questions later gets innocents killed. And I'd rather have a scumbag live when killing him might entail the deaths of scores of innocents because in the end, he can live to die another day (minus the collateral damage). That said, some rabid animals need to be put down quickly... ?:)

Number24

The worst is the drone attacks. US drones tend to first fire at what they believe is their target. They are often wrong and there is collataral deaths. Then they wait until people gather aroun the bomb site. Based on the assumption the crowd must be People working for the target, they rutinely fire again. The result is a lot of inocent deaths (for som reason the US can tell you precisely how many terrorists they have killed, but not how many children .....) In places like the afghan-Pakistani border area, many children fear blue skies because of the drones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

chrisisall

The drones will be remembered as Obama's biggest mistake IMO.

Silhouette Man

Thank you for all of the comments so far - it's much appreciated! I will give my substantive thoughts in this thread soon.

I want to note the fact that I have amended the paragraph in the OP on the role of the Russians in this issue in order to better state exactly what I meant - merely looking at what went on in the Soviet Union/the Federation of Russia as "the other side of the coin" (i.e. not as an example of what we do in the West).

Silhouette Man

Double post.

Thunderpussy

Bit early to be starting on the doubles, old boy.

chrisisall

"Professional assassination is the highest form of public service."
- Chiun, Master of Sinanju

Silhouette Man

Thunderpussy wrote:

Bit early to be starting on the doubles, old boy.

Hey - I stayed single and drank doubles, I'll have you know! )

AlphaOmegaSin

'Double Lemonade'

chrisisall

"I can't break the law; I AM the law!"
- Judge Joseph Dredd

Absolutely_Cart

I disagree with how unconventional weaponry is treated differently than conventional weaponry.

Killing people with a drone is wrong, but killing people with bullets and grenades is okay?

Silhouette Man

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

'Double Lemonade'

How did you know? ) -{

AlphaOmegaSin

I eat a lot of Fish

Silhouette Man

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I eat a lot of Fish

Ah, so that's your secret! )

Matt S

Bond hasn't made me a supporter of this. Sometimes Bond is ordered to kill the right person (Scaramanga), and sometimes he is ordered to kill the wrong person (Pushkin). Bond doesn't always follow orders, but in real life most soldiers do. In reality, often the wrong people (like Pushkin) are actually killed and it can just make things worse.

Number24

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I disagree with how unconventional weaponry is treated differently than conventional weaponry.

Killing people with a drone is wrong, but killing people with bullets and grenades is okay?

The point is that assasintions by drone causes a lot of collateral casualties. Also, when a Pakistani boy grows up fearing American drones, seeing friends and family killed by them, who will he side with - America or the people blowing up western buildings and passenger planes?

Le Samourai

Has Bond fandom affected my views on assassinations? Not at all. If anything, the Bourne Trilogy better represents my views on the subject.

And since others have mentioned it as an example of a "good" assassination, I consider the negative consequences from the Osama bin Laden raid to outweigh the positives. The CIA's exploitation of medical personnel and relief workers has led to the group Save the Children being booted out of Pakistan, people leading vaccination campaigns to be murdered, and a massive upswing in child polio cases.

National Geographic (among other outlets) has reported in this extensively.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150225-polio-pakistan-vaccination-virus-health/

Considering that many analysts believe bin Laden's assassination had little or no positive impact on U.S. security or anti-terrorism effort, one must ask if America's quest for revenge was worth the lives and health of those in Pakistan. I say no.

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150225-polio-pakistan-vaccination-virus-health/

Yep. Unintended collateral damage. No, it wasn't worth it- we could have waited a bit & done it cleaner somehow.