Comments on: Assassinating Iranian Nuclear Scientists

By: Sven

Sven — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:36:32 +0000

Bush is not talking about nuking anybody last I checked. Check again.

By: PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Glenn Reynolds, the Ward Churchill of the Right?

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:16:30 +0000

[...] For some other views on the issues see Glenn Greenwald, who objects to the whole enterprise and James Joyner who comments on Greenwald and on the overall question of assassination policy. Filed under: US Politics, Academia, Iran | |Send TrackBack [...]

By: charles austin

charles austin — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:22:21 +0000

Sorry, it was Mullah Omar rather than Osama bin Laden. But what's worse, the source is Sy Hersh, and General Franks has denied it. I therefore retract my comment. My apologies. Google "Franks Hersh Mullah Omar" and you'll get lots of links to the he said, she said, commentary, begining with Mr. Hersh's article in the New Yorker.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:25:47 +0000

IIRC, we did have a shot at OBL a few years ago while General Franks was in charge, but delays in getting the lawyers to approve the shot in real time allowed him to get away. Got a link? I can't imagine that "lawyers" were involved after we invaded Afghanistan. Franks blew Tora Bora all by himself, w/out legal aid.

By: carpeicthus

carpeicthus — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:32:52 +0000

There are some strong arguments to be made against political assassinations, especially against the likes of religious leaders and scientists, as well as for allowing the executive to conduct them unchecked by legislative oversight.

Gee, ya think?

By: cas

cas — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:12:34 +0000

I'm trying to figure out how the DIRECT support of Hezb'allah by Iran should NOT be considered a direct act of war against the US. The Shia of Lebanon had little organization, terrorist or otherwise, before the Iranian Islamic Republic started organizing and funding them. The US is the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon in war, against an enemy that had attacked us WITHOUT declaring war, and whose troops consistently refused to surrender, or recognize any other western-style rules of war (Japanese POW treatment? NOTHING like the Guantanamo "country club," or even Abu Gharib). We used those nukes to AVOID having to invade the Japanese home islands, and prevent the death of thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of our soldiers, and probably millions of Japanese civilians. Should we be considered immoral because of this? Our scientists still weren't sure if those bombs would work correctly, despite the tests. If the collapse of the Iranian government means the prevention of an overall Middle East nuclear war, with the subsequent catastrophic loss of life, not to mention complete disruption of the world economy, would actions such as the assassination of these "religious"/ political officials be justified? I think regime change would be a more satisfactory answer to this crisis than would the targeting of Iranian physicists, who would be able to apply their research to the construction of nuclear power plants for Iran, once the current theocracy is removed. Or would the invasion of Iran be a better option? How about the destruction of several US or allied cities due to Iranian nuclear bombs? How long should we wait before attempting to assassinate the current generation's version of Hitler / Stalin?

By: charles austin

charles austin — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:02:37 +0000

IIRC, we did have a shot at OBL a few years ago while General Franks was in charge, but delays in getting the lawyers to approve the shot in real time allowed him to get away.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:46:26 +0000

Bush is not talking about nuking anybody last I checked. I suspect you don't credit Sy Hersh's reporting, but he says the Pentagon's been instructed to look into the use of nukes vs. Iran's nuclear program. As for "pretty whacked-out person," that's a good description of Cheney, & arguably of Bush.

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:18:11 +0000

Ahhh... My bad.

Then I suggest that you just "suggest the distinct possibility" that the scientist is a child molester. It's a lot harder to object to killing nuclear scientists that are child molesters. And, after all, it's a distinct possibility.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:03:04 +0000

Those criteria also justify Iran in murdering every American nuclear scientist it can get its paws on.

Uhhmmmm no. Bush is not talking about nuking anybody last I checked. Sure he is probably going to rate as a horrible President, but anti-semite, holocaust denier, and supporter or terrorism? I think he'll get really, really low marks in those areas. Ahmadinejhad on the other hand will probably score really high and if they do get a working nuke, he might be the first national leader to pop a nuke since Truman.

So I don't see the equivalence here. Sorry.

LaurenceB,

A remedial reading course might be in order for you. I didn't make any such assumption, but suggested the distinct possibility.

I'm just saying.

By: The Political Pit Bull

The Political Pit Bull — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:54:11 +0000

Extremist, Deranged Blogger Gets Really Annoyed at Glenn Reynolds...

According to Glenn Ellison Ellensburg, the following, written by Reynolds, is "extremist and deranged." We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting...

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:46:25 +0000

...A scientist who may very well share an ideology similar to OBLs...

Steve,
It seems much too convenient for you to assume that this soon-to-be-assassinated scientist shares Osama Bin Laden's ideology. As a software developer, I've worked off and on for different defense-related projects over the years - I can't name even one colleague during all that time who seemed to be developing military-related software out of a sense of political ideology.

Just saying.

By: Iowa Voice

Iowa Voice — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:18:02 +0000

The Smoking Gun…Literally…For War With Iran...

I know the nutroots and the liberals in Washington are loathe to contemplate it, but when you have reports like this coming out, it’s hard for any rational person to see any other way around milita…

......

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:12:20 +0000

Let me see, a scientist in a country lead by a pretty whacked out person. A scientist building a weapon that could cause catastrophic loss of life and lead to the Middle East being the stage for nuclear weapons exchange. A scientist who may very well share an ideology similar to OBLs. Sorry, same ball park, same league, same sport.

Those criteria also justify Iran in murdering every American nuclear scientist it can get its paws on. Good thing Reynolds isn't proposing to target Iranian economists for their support of the fiscal efforts necessary to build the Bomb. Eh, Steve?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:10:32 +0000

Still, this doesn’t strike me as “extremist and deranged.”

Yeah, well, about that... You're not a Democrat leaning Pundit desperately trying to be shrill enough to please his new readership.

Typical Greenwald.