When it's OK to assassinate
When it's OK to assassinate
Who is a valid target?
Based on carefully planned intelligence, much of it so secret that the people who got the mission had no idea how it was obtained, the operation proceeded. In the end, a high-level enemy was assassinated. Did it shorten a war or avoid casualties? We don’t know.
The assassination I’m referring to is Operation Vengeance. It was carried out by the United States against Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, commander of the Japanese Imperial Navy. Admiral Chester Nimitz authorized the assassination, while President Franklin Roosevelt and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox remained at arms length, neither approving nor halting the operation. The U.S. killed a high-ranking enemy commander, on purpose, in a targeted strike.
It’s not the first time we’ve gone after “high value targets.” Wikileaks published a book on our program. President John F. Kennedy spent years trying, unfruitfully, to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. There remain plenty of conspiracy theories that the assassination of JFK came directly from Castro’s orders.
The latest in the series of American assassinations was Qassem Soleimani, who then-President Donald Trump authorized for termination. We don’t know how many terror group leaders and commanders were eliminated by drone strikes and other methods, stemming from presidential orders that remain secret. It was a fairly common practice in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama years to go after individuals (such as, famously, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri).
I’ve met some of the Air Force enlisted people who sit in darkened cubicles at undisclosed secret rooms in the U.S., watching monitors and controlling drones with a joystick, as they—very personally—kill targets. It takes a toll on people. I noticed the rather “dead eyes” and the thousand-yard stare. Ask a Vietnam “tunnel rat” vet about that stare. It’s the same stare.
Obama ordered the elimination of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen. In a lawsuit brought by Al-Aulaqi’s father, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, government lawyers argued that the executive branch should have “unreviewable authority to kill Americans…unilaterally determined to pose a threat.” The case was ultimately dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled last July that the President of the United States enjoys quite a lot of immunity for actions committed in office, within the authority the Constitution grants, which apparently includes assassinations of those deemed enemies of the state.
I have to conclude that if President Biden thought Donald Trump was truly a threat to democracy, he would be a valid target for elimination by means other than the ballot box. If Trump and his MAGA operation were really setting up state election officials and poll workers to pull off the heist of all heists—the election—then perhaps when law enforcement remedies are bound to fail (once Trump is in office, it’s over), someone might conclude stronger measures are necessary to protect our republic. Thankfully, Biden, though addled in thought, is not crazy.
Rep. Benny Thompson, however, seems to be that crazy. Thompson introduced a bill last July to strip any candidate who is a convicted felon of Secret Service protection. He then walked back his intent, saying that it only applied to felons who are imprisoned. But one of Thompson’s staffers was caught posting on social media “I don’t condone violence but please get you some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time oops that wasn’t me talking.”
As much as the party in power in the White House says they do not condone violence against the Republican running for the presidency, they sure do say he’s a great big threat if he won. Many of them secretly nod in agreement that the most permanent way to end Trump’s campaign would be—well, you know.
I have to conclude that if President Biden thought Donald Trump was truly a threat to democracy, he would be a valid target for elimination by means other than the ballot box.
Of course, if the American government executed a candidate for president, because they could prove he’s a threat to democracy in the way Vladimir Putin took over Russia, it would literally spark a civil war. So the “threat” talk remains confined to the political realm, except when some nutcase decides to camp out at Trump’s golf club for twelve hours to see if he could take a shot at the guy. How many others might decide to go after targets of opportunity? There’s a lot of guns out there, and the distribution of nuts is fairly well proportioned.
I think what Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed—that Trump receive the same kind of Secret Service protection she gets—is definitely justified, and should be done immediately. But at the same time, she needs to tell everyone to cool down the “threat to democracy” talk. There’s a difference between “he’s a disgrace” and would be a terrible president, and “danger to democracy.” The latter demands definitive action; the former is a voting choice.
If those who think it’s more than a ballot box choice—the ones who condemn Govs. Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu for supporting the nominee—are not okay with Republicans doing anything short of political suicide, if you asked them with a gun to their head, if the choice was ordering Trump’s assassination or voting for him (maybe accompanied by a syringe full of scopolamine), they’d opt for the solution with great prejudice. Or maybe they’re hypocrites. That’s a heart issue and I don’t know the answer. But if you really think the more permanent option is on the table, you might rethink some decisions that brought you to that point.
The U.S. survived four years with Trump as president. It survived some other bad presidents too, including Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and the king daddy of awful executives, Woodrow Wilson. The only presidents who have been assassinated were not bad presidents (I’d say history shows great presidents were more likely to become targets).
Legal or not under presidential immunity, there’s no situation in which a president, former, or candidate, should ever be discussed as a target. Ever. As much gusto the FBI showed in rounding up every J6 offender, there should be double that shown to anyone who threatens Trump. Period. Arrest every single one of them, regardless of who it is. Lock. Them. Up. That will satisfy me.
Moving on to other assassinations…
The Israelis haven’t disclosed the name of the operation that apparently had small amounts of explosive charges planted in encrypted pagers, along with a healthy dose of malware. It’s been speculated that the lithium-ion batteries in Hezbollah’s latest purchase of communications technology heated up and may have been part of the trigger for the charges.
Israel has made it a state policy to assassinate leaders, of its enemies, and to pursue vengeance against specific targets when the power calculus of such assassinations makes it favorable to do so. Operation Wrath of God took years to eliminate every Black September terrorist that participated in or planned the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre.
Until recently, Israel has kept such operations limited. Now, it’s open warfare on the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and a stern warning to Iran’s leaders. Removing experienced field commanders from Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is to Israel’s benefit if it’s planning a large-scale operation in southern Lebanon, which, by the pager operation, it appears to be doing. The war cabinet approved this operation, and the IDF is spooling up to launch it. Specifically, the war cabinet added returning evacuated Israelis to their homes in northern Israel as an official goal, and that means removing the threat of daily missile barrages. The only way to do that is to go in and remove the missiles and launchers.
Open war is coming once again to southern Lebanon, and anyone who opposes Israel is considered a valid target for “elimination” i.e. killing by any method.
To return to assassinations, remember this. Though Trump had a lot of talk and subterfuge to hold on to power. Though his supporters could be violent and plan violence, this time the government will be ready. I think Trump will lose the election and there will be some violence. But I also think there’s no reason to target Trump personally. He’s got enough legal problems.
There are no valid political targets in America. This is not Russia. This is not even Israel. We don’t have to kill our enemy’s leaders, though we can, and do, for various reasons. America must be better—even better than Operation Vengeance.
THE RACKET NEWS™ IS NOW ON THREADS: Our scheduling software now supports Threads so we are opening a page on that site. We also have an Instagram account that has been pretty inactive, but you may see us doing more there as well. Check us out at: https://www.threads.net/@theracketnews
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS: You can follow us on social media at several different locations. Official Racket News pages include:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRacket
Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewsRacket
Mastodon: https://federated.press/@RacketNews
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@theracketnews
David: https://www.threads.net/@captainkudzu71
Steve: https://www.threads.net/@stevengberman
Our personal accounts on the platform formerly known as Twitter:
David: https://twitter.com/captainkudzu
Steve: https://twitter.com/stevengberman
Jay: https://twitter.com/curmudgeon_NH
Thanks again for subscribing! Don’t forget to share us with your friends!
Is Trump a valid target for political assassination? Under a democratic system, absolutely not. Democracies resolve their issues at the ballot box. Carving out an exception for Trump to be shot independently of the democratic consensus only opens the door for more exceptions until democracy is a dead letter.
Is Trump a danger to democracy? Absolutely. He displays NO fealty or respect to the democratic process and to this day continues to argue that the process failed and HE was the winner of an election that he clearly lost.
And while it's easy to argue that "we survived Trump once, we'll survive him again", we are in a completely different context than before - the Supreme Court of the United States has granted presidents unprecedented immunity while in office, which makes consideration of Biden ordering a hit on Trump possible, and would enable Trump's next administration to completely ignore our existing laws and processes to exercise power in however they saw fit (as long as the Trump is willing to abuse the pardon power to immunize his cronies from legal consequences).
In addition to the new context of vastly expanded presidential immunity, we also have a convicted felon as President. He has the power to rid himself of three of four cases that have the potential to send him to prison to die, but he does not have the power to negate the Georgia case after he leaves office (and assuming that the Georgia prosecutors don't screw the pooch any further on that one). If Trump decides that he wants to die in the White House instead of Club Fed, who (with any power) will be left to tell him no? (Recall that the power to hire and fire in the executive branch is now unreviewable, and Project 2025 STARTED by assembling a list of willing toadies - authoring policy came after that.)
As much as I'm a fan of democracy and continue to hope that it persists, the current concentration of unchecked power in the hands of an individual who is more than willing to use it to advance his own personal ends might be a good indicator that 1787-style representative democracy has reached beyond its scaling point, and we might be searching for a new political arrangement within our lifetimes. I hoped that we'd see some recommitment to a stronger Federalism under Biden's administration (transfer power from Washington back to the States), but we collectively seem to be under the delusion that Trump is an one-time aberration, and not a trailblazer cutting a path for other would-be populist autocrats.
I'm so sick of republicans demanding I not acknowledge the fact the guy tried to steal my American right to vote. It's such obvious gaslighting its beneath contempt. You might not care if I get to vote or not but I do.
With that said its also stupid to pretend that if he does it again and is successful there won't be war. We are at a point where very soon it may be called upon for honorable men to refresh the tree of liberty. This is also just fact. Whether Americans are capable of answering that or if they choose to just lose their democracy is their choice. I am too close to death to choose for myself but to pretend we aren't close to it is just self delusion.
It's also time for more Americans to pick up a history book and realize political talk in this country has always been extreme and pointed. The difference is we are now fed it 24/7 nonstop by evil men who get rich making us hate each other.