“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” said US President Joe Biden in Warsaw, referring to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. History tells us what America means when it says words like that out loud. Just ask any of the sovereign heads of state who they’ve tried to kill: Congo’s Lumumba, Dominican Republic’s Trujillo, Vietnam’s Ngo, Cuba’s Castro, Libya’s Gaddafi, to name a few.
The US has a long track record of extrajudicial assassination of its perceived enemies, including Osama bin Laden, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iranian military chief General Qassem Suleimani.
Assume Biden wasn’t kidding. If Putin was taken out in the interests of, well, humanity, would that be okay?
Doing so would not be justified as a lawful military action in the context of war, even if the Ukrainians did it.
It is well recognised within the rules of war that killing military commanders is legitimate; reportedly Ukraine has been targeting Russia’s generals and has managed to kill seven of them already.
If Putin was the commander-in-chief of Russia’s armed forces, as the US President is of America’s or (hilariously) the Queen is of ours, then there’d be an arguable basis for targeting him. Technically, however, he is not.
There is also the problem of whether there is a war at all. Russia has not declared war on Ukraine, insisting it is engaged in a “special military operation” described by Putin as peacekeeping, in line with a long tradition of Russian-style peacekeeping dating back to Ivan the Terrible. Ukraine has not declared war either, but it is unmistakably at war.
The US and NATO are not at war with Russia, and they’re trying to keep it that way. Killing Putin may be a measure they decide is necessary to prevent World War III, but there is no legal precedent for preventative assassination as a justified expedient to preserve peace.
The murder of Suleimani, by US drone strike in 2020, provides an interesting precedent. Suleimani was head of Iran’s Quds Force, which the US had designated a foreign terrorist organisation on the basis that it was instrumental in pursuing Iran’s policies of supporting terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.
The US justified Suleimani’s assassination on the basis that it was necessary to deter future plans for attacks on US military and diplomatic personnel. “The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
This is a fundamental policy position the US has held more or less since its creation: reservation of the absolute right to project its force anywhere in the world to protect its interests as it sees fit. Since 9/11, this has been only faintly tethered to any theoretical respect for the rule of law, international or domestic.
In truth, the killing of Suleimani, as with bin Laden, was purely an extrajudicial murder for which no real legal justification can be found. It was an act of war against a country with which the US was not at war. With bin Laden, it was the execution of a non-state actor as an act of revenge. The moral case is not difficult to see, assuming you subscribe to Old Testament principles, but there was no legal case.
Under international law, it is illegal to assassinate a head of state. The earliest rules of war devised in the 19th century singled out heads of state for protection, understandable since they were the ones making the rules, and war was seen as a natural state.
The idea has stuck, and is now enshrined in a 1973 UN convention that explicitly includes heads of state in the definition of “internationally protected persons” and requires its signatories to make any attempt on such a person’s life a crime. The US has done so.
Is it that simple? Of course not. There are arguable loopholes. One is Article 51 of the UN Charter, which reserves the right of all nations to “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. This is the ostensible basis for the US practice of extrajudicial assassination, and some lawyers say it could be used to override the prohibition on taking out a foreign head of state as an action in self-defence.
Putting the law to one side, since it’s a mess, how strong is the moral case? Abraham Lincoln argued, as Plato did, that assassinating a leader may be justified when their people have suffered for an extended period of time and all legal and peaceful means of removal have been exhausted. That is, when there is no other choice — the Pol Pot or Idi Amin defence. That’s what the US also argued to morally justify the removal of Saddam Hussein from power via its illegal invasion of Iraq.
A tyrant who attained power by legitimate means loses, by his tyranny, his moral authority to remain in power, since power does come with responsibility. His subjects are justified then in removing him, including violently if that’s what it takes.
As to whether that domestic cause can lawfully call on the support of external nations is a different and far more problematic question. The US would always say yes, of course, but only if doing so suits America’s national interest. At that point, law and morality both part company with the pragmatism of national self-interest, and self-interest is the true arbiter of international relations.
Meaning, for Putin, watch your back. When you wave the nukes around, remember that America has no sense of humour and a very long reach.
This is also an argument for Iraqis and Libyans killing US presidents. Putin’s actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to the hell the USA has visited upon the Middle East and North Africa.
Shrub claimed “Saddam tried to kill mah Pappy!” as his casus belli when WMDs proved too risible even for septics to believe.
You wonder who needs killing. Украинские военные стреляют в ноги военнопленным – Страна Крови (strana-krovi.com)
Gee-wiz, that’s a big leap! Almost a world record! How do we get from ‘cannot stay in power’ to ‘someone needs to kill the man’? I happen to agree with Biden. Putin should be removed from power. How? By any means lawfully possible is my first port of call. But, we’re talking about the Russian federation. There are no available lawful means. Elections are not free, fair or open. Protests are violently suppressed. There is no opposition politicians who could bring together a vote for him to be unseated. So, where to now? Well, age, infirmity and health are all still in the running. One, two, or all three will ultimately unseat him and consign him to history. What about a non-violent internal coup? By whom? I guess, sadly, the people of Russia will need to decide how they deal with their Tsar, but, as I’ve outlined, the opinions are limited when it comes to non-violent processes. However, Biden was right, he cannot stay in power.
Time Russia had a Pussy Riot. Again.
Yea, they could a tatty protest song at the Australian War Memorial with lyrics calling the fallen filthy war criminals.
Where did this idea come from. It is not up to any Country to determine another Country’s head of state.
Not determining the other country’s HoS is not quite the same as removing one, if the other country then finds its own replacement. The Allies in WWII had a declared objective after the 1943 Casablanca conference of Germany’s unconditional surrender because they would not allow the existing HoS to remain in any circumstances. Was that unreasonable?
The ‘Not’ that begins the preceding post should be ignored. Sorry for any confusion.
Yet the USA allowed Hirohito to retain his throne because he would do its bidding.
Indeed, and the different treatment of Germany and Japan has always been controversial. There were reasons of course, whether they stack up is your choice.
That was part of the reason but not all of it. Hirohito was a unifying figure for the Japanese and the US needed him to enable them to retain control.
I felt it was quite unreasonable for the US to demand Hirohito’s removal. It is one thing to demand a surrender, another to demand another nation state adopt a form of government that has been developed in the West through a historical and cultural process which was quite different to that experienced by Japan.
The USA demoted Hirohito from godhood and changed the Shinto religion in significant ways – though, in typically wily/inscrutable ways they just remained schtumm about them until the bignoses’ short attention span drifted away.
JMNO maybe they felt that he was too much of a divisive figure in the political world that existed after WW2..
I don’t think that was the reason. When Japan modernised after the Meiji Restoration, in order to keep its powerful warrior class on side it created a dual system under which the military reported directly to the emperor rather than than through the parliament. It was responsible for the push for war, not the elected government. It was the emperor who began the push to surrender in the face of a military which wanted to keep fighting.
The US has a habit of trying to impose systems of government and running the economy on other countries that are unsuitable and often produce the reverse result to that intended.
Unfortunately, these things in hindsight may make little sense, but history only gets these countries so far, as different measures were enforced by the International Courts at the time, I would suggest they determined that because Germany were seen as the cause of both WW1 and 2 and Japan had really only come in on the tail end of WW2, plus they also sustained a huge amount of damage from the Nuclear bombs, having to rebuild the country and deal with ongoing radiation issues, maybe the US have felt that they would be better off building more useful diplomatic ties with Hirohito and the Japanese Royal family..
Pearl Harbour 1941 is hardly “…the tail end of WW2”.
The USA wanted Japan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for their planned war against the Soviets – stymied by the Rosenbergs giving them the H bomb secrets to ensure peace through parity.
The hegemon still has nuclear armed garrisons on the Japanese islands 75yrs later, the pretext now being China.
Yes in in WW2 desperate times called for desperate measures..
Really? Australian PM’s for the last 50 years (with the exception of Rudd & Gillard) have been determined by an American.
In and ideal world I would agree with you PeterM, but Ukraine is just the start unfortunately, the question is when is taking Putin out by force best to happen, when he’s pushed through the whole of Europe and taken over all the countries in his wake, this unfortunately stinks of Nazism and we all know how that ended…
Please understand Russian objectives in Ukraine before repeating Western nonsense about Putin wanting ot re-establish Russian Empire.
They are/were:
DeNazify, De NATOize, Protect Donbas from 8 years of AFU attacks, essentially ethnic cleansing.
Russia on the other hand, contrary to hypocritical Western complaints about the political status, is a democratic state with a federative, law-based republican style government.
It is not communist. Certainly not National Socialist (Nazi).
In fact, no other country in the 21st century has thus far done Nazism the way the Ukraine under Zelensky and his Azov friends did.
Be aware that had he renounced the Bucharest invite to join NATO, as asked by Olaf Scholz, Zelensky could have avoided this, all of this. He refused.
He also reneged on preliminary conditions for peace agreements when ordered to do so by Boris of Britain.
A great deal of responsibility is on Zelensky, this Neocon’s puppet President, although I imagine the millions he has made will assuage any conscience he might have appeared to have in early comedian days.
In Donbas, approximately 16,000 AFU soldiers are trapped.
As in Mariupol, these brave Ukrainians are facing a fearful future, forbidden by Zelensky from surrendering and expected to fight to the last man. However, surrender is increasingly occurring and it will not be very long before the bulk of the AFU in Donbas has followed the example and the North will be under Russian control..
Russia will achieve their goals and as long as the West don’t do something truly mad, the situation will settle down.
Given sensible policy changes and real diplomacy, the economic Seppuku that European economic experts have committed may not be as disastrous as it looks it is going ot be.
Most people in the West are made oblivious to these facts by the wall of propaganda from the MSM and Social Media Swamp.
Failure to understand what is really going on, which could take the world to [a nuclear] WW3!
The blue print for all this can be found here//
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
Initially: Monroe Doctrine
Post WW2:…US exceptionalism.
90s: Neocons, PNAC, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences” ..
Now: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
“Elections are not free, fair or open. Protests are violently suppressed. There is no opposition politician who could bring together a vote for him to be unseated.”
What a load of poppycock! You obviously have not studied the country, the internal politics and base all your “information” on “news” from western MSM, which have run a 20 yr campaign of “Putin is a Tyrant!” Just as they do to all the other world leaders who don’t do as they say. Noticed that? If you don’t support the west, the USA, you’re a murderous tyrant, dictator, etc etc……
Russian elections are free and more open than the USA. As open as Australia. Violent protests? perhaps – not all protests by any means, but the only protests I’ve been tear gassed and seen demonstrators being beaten with clubs, has been NZ & Australia. “opposition politician who could bring together a vote for him to be unseated” – he’s the President, not the Prime Minister – that would be Mishustin.
Some years ago I noticed the similarity of pics & news clips of robocops beating the bejasus of people.
They could be substituted for almost anywhere in the world and, apart from signage or scenery, would be indistinguishable from our own beloved constabularies.
What was it Pogo said just over half a century ago?
“We have met the enemy and it is us!”
John, Thanks for the comment. You got me interested and attempted to find out how the president of Russia is elected. Found Wiki. Direct vote as opposed to the corrupt collegiate system in the USA where the person with the most elector votes does not necessarily win. Also interesting if only one candidate there still is a vote, and to be elected must receive a 50% “yes” vote. Am I missing something here.
Before all this started didn’t the West understand the full ramifications of economic sanctions etc.? One questions the competence of their international advisors. Or was Ukraine and western populations sold a pup by the USA?
Sadly I tend to believe all the death and destruction may have been avoided. Why – because I read Crikey and SCOMOs lie list. Why should US politicians be any different?
Crikey is the last refuge of Australia’s tankies – apart from their own feverish in-house journals I suppose.
No it just says a lot about how far the Overton window has moved to the right in media, political & social narratives; too many Australians now sound like American GOP lite.
Maybe John, but in regards to Ukraine the leadership in Russia needs to be changed, as this war is not going well, and really Putin isn’t coming out of this well, no matter what amount of propaganda he’s trying to feed his people and those who are silly enough to believe what they’re being told.
Putin needs to step down, but being the psychopath he is, that’s unlikely to happen, the propensity for killing off people that they see as being a threat is not unusual, remember the Polonium on the door knob, for those that try to escape, now people need to actually sit up and take notice..
I had a relative that ended up in a Russian jail because he had set up a contract with a Russian power wholesaler, he was picked up by the Russian government/KGB a few days later as apparently with their constant changing of rules, he had apparently unintentially committed a crime, when his case went to court, it was a choice of 10 years in Siberia, or a 2 million pounds sterling fine, it destroyed his family, they had to head to different corners of the word and they had to change identities the whole box and dice..
So John this may be your impression, but the reality is the Russian government rarely plays fair and they’re no different from any other form of dictatorship, if they’re so democratic, why does any opposition to Putin suddenly get sick and die?
Re “…those who are silly enough to believe what they’re being told…”, there seems to be an awful lot of that about here and the anglophone world.
The EU, especially France & Germany, are much less inclined to believe the hype & hysterical demands, from the usual suspects, for no-fly zones, boots on the ground etc ad nauseam.
“A tyrant who attained power by legitimate means loses, by his tyranny, his moral authority to remain in power, since power does come with responsibility. His subjects are justified then in removing him, including violently if that’s what it takes.
As to whether that domestic cause can lawfully call on the support of external nations is a different and far more problematic question. The US would always say yes, of course, but only if doing so suits America’s national interest.”
Well, yes. There are relevant examples in British and US history.
Charles I was legitimately king of England and Scotland, civil war broke out in the nations he ruled, he lost the English war and was put on trial for his life when the Scottish government handed him back. The essense of his alleged crime was that ha made war on his subjects. It’s still debatable how sound the legal basis was for that trial, which involved the entirely novel idea of placing the Crown, in the person of the monarch, under the laws which supposedly all come from the Crown. The trial ended with his conviction and beheading despite his consistent refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the proceedings. If the trial was proper, so was his execution. If not, it was murder.
Charles’ youngest son James VII or II was deposed in 1688 by a rebellion that called on the support of an external nation. The Dutch were enemies of England and the nations had been at war not so long before. The rebellion put a Dutch prince on the English throne, protected by Dutch regiments. The occupiers faced deep hostility and enforced a curfew in London for decades, in fear of a spontaneous rising by the London mob. This part of English history is usually glossed over with happy talk about a Glorious Revolution, which suits the rebels very well.
In a similar way the American Colonies rebelled in 1776 against what they chose to call the ‘tyranny’ of George III. Like the rebels of 1688 they did not hesitate to seek foreign help, which the UK’s main enemy, France, was happy to provide. The French assistance in men, arms and fighting ships was critical to the rebellion’s success.
So perhaps where Bradley sees problematic questions he is being a little too lawyerly. In the end what matters was summed up by John Harington:
“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason?”
“For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.”
Billy Orange was also a big hit in Ireland – still revered & cursed to this day.
Did Charles I not solicit the assistance of catholic France in retaining his throne? I got the impression that Charles I was charged by Cromwell with treason for this reason.
Whatever may have passed between Charles and France was not mentioned his prosecution. The great bulk of the charge is all about Charles making war on his subjects. There are only two mentions of any foreign influence, inter alia:
‘invasions from forraign parts, endevored and procured by Him‘ and
‘He, the said Charls Stuart, doth still continue his Commissions to the said Prince [i.e. his eldest son], and other Rebels and Revolters, both English and Forraigners; and to the Earl of Ormond, and to the Irish Rebels and Revolters, associated with him; from whom further Invasions upon this Land are threatned, upon the procurement, and on the behalf of the said Charls Stuart.’
You can find the complete text by a search for ‘THE Charge of the Commons of England, against CHARLS STUART, King of England, Of High Treason, and other High Crimes’
Also, he was not charged by Cromwell. Cromwell and others in the post-war administration made great efforts to find some other resolution with Charles but Charles would not compromise. They finally agreed to put him on trial, but all the judicial work was done of course by lawyers and others in the judiciary. The charge was devised, drafted and laid by the Solicitor General, John Cooke. It was an extraordinary and ground-breaking work which is seen as foundational for all later attempts to put heads of state anywhere on trial.
At the restoration in 1666 John Cooke and the other surviving judges were hunted down, arrested and charged with regicide. On conviction they suffered the most brutal, protracted and savage deaths that the laws of the time permitted. It is still arguable Charles II acted with restraint and mercy because he took his revenge on a small number of particular enemies rather than conducting a general and widespread murderous purge against anyone associated or collaborating with the short-lived Commonwealth.
Thanks for the comprehensive answer – the obviously point on the charges is that Cromwell has placed himself in control of the country and if he wants C I charged he doesn’t have to put his name on the writs any more than Putin has to put his on the charges against Navalny but nobody need doubt who is calling the shots.
Ahh – sorry, “obvious”, obviously.
There is still some fairly big difference between Cromwell / Charles I and Putin / Navalny.
Cromwell was a leading figure in the group who were in control immediately after the civil war, but he was absolutely not the HoS until later. As you can see from the charge laid against him, Charles was still the acknowledged King and the charge was laid on behalf of Parliament, not Cromwell. All the way through this period Cromwell and most of his colleagues wanted Charles to remain King, and that would have happened if Charles had agreed to some constitutional reform of the relationship of Crown and Parliament. Charles forced them into a corner by refusing. This caused them huge difficulty and disagreement. Some of Cromwell’s colleagues thought the impasse would be best resolved by quietly murdering Charles, but Cromwell and other Parliamentarians would not act outside the law.
Hence the trial, for lack of any alternative, where no effort was spared to conduct the proceedings fairly. The results in a way vindicated those who favoured murder. The trial gave Charles a platform he used effectively, and even more his public execution, which was regarded by many as a martyrdom; an impression successfully exploited in Royalist propaganda to create a saint-like aura around Charles that helped enormously to mend his reputation and secure the restoration. One of the best examples was the book Eikon Basilike, The Pourtrature of His Sacred Majestie in His Solitudes and Sufferings, ostensibly autobiographical, and published just 10 days after his execution.
Charles was executed on 30 Jan 1649. The Commonwealth was created soon after and Parliament had both executive and legislative power. It was only after the failure of this experiment that Cromwell became Lord Protector in 1653. He emphatically did not kill the King so he could seize or keep power.
Putin on the other hand is already the HoS, and unlike Cromwell he uses both trumped-up charges and targeted murders against political opponents.
Victor Yunakovych the former president of Ukraine narrowly escaped with his life after the US engineered violent coup toppled his democratically elected government in 2014. His crime was to steer a middle of the road neutral path between the EU/NATO and Russia.
Another fact often overlooked when discussion the current situation in Ukraine.
All you hear is “all Ukraine, all the time”. The MSM even play down war crimes committed by Ukrainian soldiers. The tone is always “Ukraine are Angels, Russians are Devils”.
As I’ve said in another post, I read Mary Kostakidis, Tony Kevin, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, John Pilger, Scott Ritter for balance. Crikey is now as bad as Morrison and Boris Johnson on Russia. Hysterical. The MSM is locked into an endless loop of evil Putin, Russian killers, etc.. It’s bad journalism. For me it’s like reading only the comments on Hartcher’s stuff to see how many holes are in it. Same for Crikey articles about Russia. Saves time and you get some sense out of the responses.
The level of intellectual remove displayed in the commentary of those you cite is distressing. Use of illegal weapons and civilian targeting can not be intellectualised away by stating that bad shit has gone down elsewhere. By all means raise prior errors & omissions but not at the expense of whitewashing current evil.
Exactly. As for Hartcher we could move the goal posts a bit and exterminate those who don’t fit certain ideals.
I am appalled at the coverage of the Ukrainian situation by the Media.
I now rely on daily News from Al Jazeera, where it is not laced with opinion, judgement, and propaganda.
I rely on….not the right words, but…obtain my information from various bloggers at the scene – one living in Kharkov is now shitting himself, because of the gangs roaming the streets killing anyone who seems to be “anti Ukraine”, R/T, Intel Slava, people like Scott Ritter, Andrei Martyanov, Larry Johnson, all in the US, ex military who actually know what is going on and in Andreiss case, how the Russian command thinks and operates (having been in general staff there). I’ve given up on all MSM sites – most of their info is straight from Ukraine sources, or just made up (usually the same thing) – certainly no facts involved, just all hysteria,virtue signalling, violently russophobic, (the Germans didn’t hate the Russians this much in WW2, ffs) drivel that fits the prevailling US narrative.
Was the “blogger at the scene” shitting himself before Russia bombed the shit out of Kharkov?
Maybe life in Kharkov would have been less fraught for everybody had Russia not brought war to the region?
Fox News are giving Putin a fair crack of the whip, which I guess isn’t surprising given the brotherly love between the great Russian dictator and Murdoch’s wannabe American dictator.
Check out Fox News and Tucker Carlson. He’s bringing you the news like Anna Politkovskaya isn’t.
‘For balance‘?
How about the requirement of having expertise in a field and analysis of facts? Credibility is not the person but the quality of their sources (aka CRAAP test) and ability to offer an argument or position (with support or evidence), that can be challenged; regurgitation of agitprop does not count.
Not to say that some those individuals listed have not done good work in the past, but even then there was sometimes evidence of going off piste with their own subjective views, possibly fueled by narcissism and/or they needed the money….
Personally if one wants to nominate individuals with experience and expertise one would suggest Anne Applebaum, Edward Lucas, Masha Gessen, Ben Juddah, et al. and a multitude of journalists contributing to media including Balkan Insight, ByLine Times etc.
Would also add Tim Snyder and Eric Dreitser (Counter Punch) versus the ageing hacks and grifters cited, who lack basic skills of critical analysis while averting their gaze from current events.
Similar to why the GOP is still tearing itself apart when most of their voters oppose Putin, but the fringe alt right, libertarians, Trump, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon et al. support him.