Just read that a Russian bomb hit a maternity and children’s hospital in Ukraine, killing staff and babies. Is Putin’s assassination the answer to this atrocity and others like it? What is the ethics of targeted killings and assassinations?
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s apparent call for Putin to be assassinated has drawn backlash. Graham’s suggestion that Russians should assassinate President Vladimir Putin has drawn the ire of Republicans and Democrats concerned over the war in Ukraine.
“Is there a Brutus in Russia?” the South Carolina Republican asked in a tweet.
Roman Emperor Julius Caesar was assassinated by Brutus and others in the Rome Senate on the Ides of March. Graham was also referring to German Lt. Claus von Stauffenberg, who tried to kill Adolf Hitler in the summer of 1944.
“The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service,” Graham said.
According to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, “People are watching these images, alright, they’re seeing what’s happening there, and people being murdered and suffering, and it makes you angry, and you want something to happen. And you reach the conclusion, ‘oh wouldn’t it be great if someone internally just took this guy and eliminated him?’”
“That’s not the official policy, obviously, of the United States, no one’s talking about the U.S. doing it,” he later added.
Assassinations during military conflict are specifically forbidden by the Lieber Code which President Abraham Lincoln issued as a general order for the U.S. forces in 1863.
Section IX of the code states that the laws of war forbid declaring a member of a hostile force or citizen or subject of a hostile government to be an outlaw “who may be slain without trial.”
“Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism,” according to the Lieber Code, which underpins international conventions on warfare.
Contrary to Putin’s lies, Ukraine did not start this war. A runt does not pick on a 300-pound bully.
Modern weaponry expedites the ability of actors in technologically advanced nations to eliminate real as well as perceived adversaries. Improved accuracy of unmanned aircraft (e.g., drones) reduces the risk of offensive action to active personnel and perhaps can lead to further acceptance of the assassination or targeted killing options. The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020 as well as prior targeted killings refreshes an eternal debate relating to rules of engagement between adversaries in conflict.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” at 2268 holds that “Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.”
In sum, are Putin’s atrocious actions, resulting in the loss of innocent human lives, proportionate reasons for his assassination?
Bernard J. Rabik, a Hopewell Township attorney, is an opinion columnist for The Times.
This article originally appeared on Beaver County Times: Rabik: Is Putin’s assassination the answer?
