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.
Well said Chris and we know the first term had "adults in the room" trying to contain and control his crazy, there will be no such luxury next time around. We already see the cast of characters assembling and it's not pretty.
I hope Steve is right about trump losing, but if he doesn't i have very little hope for the future with an unrestricted president and the likes of miller, bannon, giuliani and so many other unhinged freaks. And let's not forget about rfk and elon filling key roles in the decision making process.
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.
"There’s a lot of guns out there, and the distribution of nuts is fairly well proportioned."
While this exercise/question is interesting/curious, the most compelling piece of the puzzle was stated above...at least for me. Sums it all up as we approach the November outcome.
Someone who states they want to be a dictator and terminate the constitution and to prosecute and/or execute their political enemies is a threat to democracy.
No. The discussion was more whether saying in the course of politics that a political figure is a danger to the republic leads to assassination. Discourse is expected and assassinations are not tolerable result.
You can’t give a pass for saying someone is the kind of threat you claim Trump is but then condemn efforts beyond the ballot box and legal system. It’s a motte and bailey fallacy to argue this about Trump. The consequences are going to get more people killed. Blaming Trump for people killing his supporters while taking potshots at him is a dishonest position.
Or perhaps more specifically: you may be a bit partial to the idea that violent resistance against tyrants is acceptable, and that stating Trump wants to be a tyrant (which you can agree is factual) is permission for political violence to occur.
Does it really need to be said how often I've heard this said by right wingers re Obama and other Democrats for decades?
Do you think that that rhetoric has played any part in this, or no?
But sure, it's only the Democrats that have to change - even when people get a load of guns and ammunition to kill Democrats and are only unsuccessful because they were caught.
Not those two things. No. I direct you to my thought experiment. If a gun was to your head, and the choice was casting a vote for Trump (ie Trump winning) or Trump targeted for elimination, which would you choose? If Trump is indeed the threat you claim he is, then shouldn’t Biden target him, especially if he wins, before he takes the oath of office. He’d be saving democracy, no?
Steve, both Trump and political violence are threats to our democracy.
And like it or not, one man has been constantly pushing political violence for the last 9 years - and continues to do so, even after having been shot at once.
So it is only right to call out Trump for being a threat to democracy, and to condemn political violence.
Do you honestly think Trump has not committed any crimes worthy of prosecution? Or that it is inappropriate to prosecute someone for insulting a political leader, or voting against them?
So you didn't see where numerous attempted assassins were captured on their way to Obama, Biden, and others?
The only potential prosecutable crime I am aware of is carelessness with classified documents Even in that case he was far more legally in possession of those documents than Joe Biden who was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.
First link: Taranto was illegally in possession of weapons. No targeting was charged.
Second link: Xiong was obviously a nut job consumed by right-wing conspiracy theories.
I'll bet there are thousands more right- and left-wing crazies out there wishing they could do damage. The right-wing nuts are hunted relentlessly as well they should be. The left-wing nuts are often ignored, maybe in hopes they will succeed.
The salient point in assassination is a targeted killing of a prominent person. An admiral killed in the course of a battle is not an assassination and in fact the U.S. disguised Yamamoto’s assassination in this way. We never acknowledged it and pretended we just shot down an airplane as a target of opportunity.
Hmm...I still don't know that it's a good example, considering it was in the Solomon Islands during the campaign there - so Yamamoto was always at some risk regardless. That we had intel on the matter doesn't change that, in my mind.
It is. But Operation Vengeance had one purpose: to kill Yamamoto. He was a military target of no combat value but as an assassination it was of some value.
He was an enemy commander in uniform in the field, in a military aircraft. As an active commander in the field, he was an active combatant - even if he would not typically be in a direct combat role.
Steve, I think you’re defending a bad position here. Yamamoto was a serving member of the Japanese military during active combat operations. The decision-making in the targeting process or even operational-level planning does not shift the action into being an “assassination”. He’s a valid target in every instance.
But otherwise, another good article. Thank you for this.
"murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons"
As commander-in-chief of the IJN's Combined Fleet, I'd argue that his was a valid military target of strategic import - not (solely) a political figure at all.
As an aside: the P-38 Lightning is my favorite fighter of the WWII era.
The USA was probably better off when the CIA was allowed to assassinate in foreign countries. But their seemingly involvement in the USA starting with JFK is unacceptable. Assassination can be used to avoid wars . But the second part of a diplomatic settlement has to be accomplished without being lopsided in favor of the enemy. But make no mistake that the USA is not much different than Russia and China, and sometimes worse in the insistence of forever being involved in wars because the elite deep state desires to make more money by any means. And that’s the main reason why they don’t want President Trump. While most claim that they want peace on earth, their concept of how to achieve it is anything but. Including their involvement in foreign elections and more than likely in domestic ones too.
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.
Well said Chris and we know the first term had "adults in the room" trying to contain and control his crazy, there will be no such luxury next time around. We already see the cast of characters assembling and it's not pretty.
I hope Steve is right about trump losing, but if he doesn't i have very little hope for the future with an unrestricted president and the likes of miller, bannon, giuliani and so many other unhinged freaks. And let's not forget about rfk and elon filling key roles in the decision making process.
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.
"There’s a lot of guns out there, and the distribution of nuts is fairly well proportioned."
While this exercise/question is interesting/curious, the most compelling piece of the puzzle was stated above...at least for me. Sums it all up as we approach the November outcome.
Someone who states they want to be a dictator and terminate the constitution and to prosecute and/or execute their political enemies is a threat to democracy.
So no, Steve: it should not stop being said.
Political opposition fine. Assassination not.
Did I state political violence is OK?
No. The discussion was more whether saying in the course of politics that a political figure is a danger to the republic leads to assassination. Discourse is expected and assassinations are not tolerable result.
In a liberal democracy, assassination is never tolerable. As long as we have ours, it is never acceptable.
Agreed
You can’t give a pass for saying someone is the kind of threat you claim Trump is but then condemn efforts beyond the ballot box and legal system. It’s a motte and bailey fallacy to argue this about Trump. The consequences are going to get more people killed. Blaming Trump for people killing his supporters while taking potshots at him is a dishonest position.
Oh, so two things can't be true at the same time?
Steve, you're just wrong on this one.
Or perhaps more specifically: you may be a bit partial to the idea that violent resistance against tyrants is acceptable, and that stating Trump wants to be a tyrant (which you can agree is factual) is permission for political violence to occur.
Does it really need to be said how often I've heard this said by right wingers re Obama and other Democrats for decades?
Do you think that that rhetoric has played any part in this, or no?
But sure, it's only the Democrats that have to change - even when people get a load of guns and ammunition to kill Democrats and are only unsuccessful because they were caught.
Not those two things. No. I direct you to my thought experiment. If a gun was to your head, and the choice was casting a vote for Trump (ie Trump winning) or Trump targeted for elimination, which would you choose? If Trump is indeed the threat you claim he is, then shouldn’t Biden target him, especially if he wins, before he takes the oath of office. He’d be saving democracy, no?
Why would a gun be against my head and forcing me to vote for Trump or to attempt to kill him?
I have options right now, and that option involves voting against him.
Then prepare to yield all the votes to a guy with a bullet.
Isn't this what the Right calls "a Second Amendment solution"?
Steve, both Trump and political violence are threats to our democracy.
And like it or not, one man has been constantly pushing political violence for the last 9 years - and continues to do so, even after having been shot at once.
So it is only right to call out Trump for being a threat to democracy, and to condemn political violence.
I see only one political enemy facing prosecution and attempted assassination by his opposition.
Do you honestly think Trump has not committed any crimes worthy of prosecution? Or that it is inappropriate to prosecute someone for insulting a political leader, or voting against them?
So you didn't see where numerous attempted assassins were captured on their way to Obama, Biden, and others?
For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-defendant-arrested-obamas-home-guns-400-rounds-ammunition-van-rcna92094
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/he-plans-on-dying-while-fighting-evil-demons-at-the-white-house-man-with-carload-of-weapons-and-hit-list-that-included-biden-obama-and-clinton-gets-years-in-prison/
The only potential prosecutable crime I am aware of is carelessness with classified documents Even in that case he was far more legally in possession of those documents than Joe Biden who was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.
First link: Taranto was illegally in possession of weapons. No targeting was charged.
Second link: Xiong was obviously a nut job consumed by right-wing conspiracy theories.
I'll bet there are thousands more right- and left-wing crazies out there wishing they could do damage. The right-wing nuts are hunted relentlessly as well they should be. The left-wing nuts are often ignored, maybe in hopes they will succeed.
On Yamamoto: is it considered an assassination considering he was an enemy commander in a war zone during a declared bi-lateral war?
The salient point in assassination is a targeted killing of a prominent person. An admiral killed in the course of a battle is not an assassination and in fact the U.S. disguised Yamamoto’s assassination in this way. We never acknowledged it and pretended we just shot down an airplane as a target of opportunity.
Hmm...I still don't know that it's a good example, considering it was in the Solomon Islands during the campaign there - so Yamamoto was always at some risk regardless. That we had intel on the matter doesn't change that, in my mind.
But this is pedantry.
It is. But Operation Vengeance had one purpose: to kill Yamamoto. He was a military target of no combat value but as an assassination it was of some value.
He was an enemy commander in uniform in the field, in a military aircraft. As an active commander in the field, he was an active combatant - even if he would not typically be in a direct combat role.
That’s irrelevant to the definition of assassination.
Steve, I think you’re defending a bad position here. Yamamoto was a serving member of the Japanese military during active combat operations. The decision-making in the targeting process or even operational-level planning does not shift the action into being an “assassination”. He’s a valid target in every instance.
But otherwise, another good article. Thank you for this.
"murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons"
As commander-in-chief of the IJN's Combined Fleet, I'd argue that his was a valid military target of strategic import - not (solely) a political figure at all.
As an aside: the P-38 Lightning is my favorite fighter of the WWII era.
The USA was probably better off when the CIA was allowed to assassinate in foreign countries. But their seemingly involvement in the USA starting with JFK is unacceptable. Assassination can be used to avoid wars . But the second part of a diplomatic settlement has to be accomplished without being lopsided in favor of the enemy. But make no mistake that the USA is not much different than Russia and China, and sometimes worse in the insistence of forever being involved in wars because the elite deep state desires to make more money by any means. And that’s the main reason why they don’t want President Trump. While most claim that they want peace on earth, their concept of how to achieve it is anything but. Including their involvement in foreign elections and more than likely in domestic ones too.