Assassins are not all alike. In the world of assassins, like in the world of computer hackers, there are those who wear white hats and those who wear black hats. Some assassinations are carried out by the good guys, others by the bad guys.
It is the motivation behind the act of an assassin that differentiates between the good from the bad. One side is motivated by hatred and spite. Is not a question of perspective.
It is wrong to think one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Rather, it is all about good versus evil — right versus wrong.
The breakdown is simple. Those on the side of evil believe that the assassination of a leader in the democratic world will bring about change and even topple a government. They believe the assassination will cause a vacuum, that it will bring about a downward spiral of events leading to a change and making the world a better place.
Anarchist assassins fall into the category.
In 1901, in Buffalo, N.Y., there was the assassination of President William McKinley, the 25th president of the United States. Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, shot the president twice in the abdomen. McKinley died of gangrene caused by the bullet wounds.
McKinley was the third president of the United States to be assassinated. His assassin, like other revolutionaries, mistakenly believed that by deposing a leader via assassination would change society for the better.
In a stable democracy, that just doesn’t happen. Assassinations by evil people neither depose nor dethrone. Stability of government and the peaceful transition of power are part and parcel of democracy.
Yigal Amir despised Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and, on November 4, 1995, assassinated him. Amir hated what Rabin stood for. He hated the direction in which Rabin was taking the country.
But assassinating Rabin did nothing to help or advance Amir’s cause. If anything, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin mobilized the country and significantly set back his right-wing extremist cause.
White hats, the good guy assassins, do not use the term “assassination” to define their actions. Their actions are most often euphemistically called “targeted attacks” or “targeted killings.”
The United States targeted ISIS leader Osama Bin Ladin. The entity behind the death of Ismael Haniyah in Teheran targeted the Hamas leader.
The purpose of these assassinations is not revenge nor is it justice, although it sometimes appears that way. Revenge killing is wrong and it is, ultimately, illegal under international law. The purpose of targeted killings is to prevent future terror attacks.
More specifically, the person is targeted not simply for what they have done but because of what their actions will mean for the future. Because the image they convey invigorates other terrorists and inspires and recruits new terrorists. Because they have been planning, supporting, subsidizing and sponsoring future terror attacks.
Targeted killings are legal and justified by international law only if they are self -defense moves on the part of the good guys. If they are simply revenge attacks, they are illegal. If the motivation of a country or organization is to seek justice, then the terrorist must be captured and tried, convicted and sentenced. Note the significant distinction.
Sometimes, during the course of capture, the terrorist is killed in a gunfight. Again, that killing is sanctioned according to international legal standards.
Assassinations are not a new phenomenon, they have a long and storied history. In fact, the phenomenon existed long before the word was created.
The Bible tells of numerous assassinations. The most famous is the assassination carried out by Jael. As told in Judges 4, Jael lured King Sisera and put him to sleep with a warm glass of milk, then drove a spike through his head.
Joash was assassinated by his servants in II Kings 12. Joab assassinated Absalom in II Samuel 3. And of course, King Sennacherib of Assyria was assassinated by his sons in II Chronicles 32.
Is there anyone unfamiliar with the phrase, the hurtful cry, “et tu Brute”? While the words “assassin” and “assassinate” were relatively new to the English language when Shakespeare penned Julius Caesar, the concepts were well known.
The etymology of assassination or assassin probably comes from the Arabic “Hashishin” which translates to people who smoked hashish or hash. Hassan Sabbah founded the group Hashishin in about the year 1100.
Composed of Nizari Islamists who simply targeted and killed their enemies, their Order of the Assassins became feared and powerful. They murdered whomever they deemed to be a potential enemy.
Their name is assumed to come from what is thought to be their pastime — smoking hash.
Today, in our world, there are codified rules. Killing a terrorist who is planning an attack is not the same as assassinating, or trying to assassinate, a former president of the United States. To think otherwise is a glaring display of ignorance — moral, ethical and legal ignorance.
Micah Halpern is a political and foreign affairs commentator. He founded "The Micah Report" and hosts "Thinking Out Loud with Micah Halpern," a weekly TV program, and "My Chopp," a daily radio spot. Follow him on Twitter @MicahHalpern. Read Micah Halpern's Reports — More Here.