Are foreign assassination an act of war?

[LikelyToBreak]

If foreign assassinations are an act of war, what do you think of this:

The head of Iran's cyber warfare programme has been shot dead, triggering further accusations that outside powers are carrying out targeted assassinations of key figures in the country's security apparatus.

Mojtaba Ahmadi, who served as commander of the Cyber War Headquarters, was found dead in a wooded area near the town of Karaj, north-west of the capital, Tehran. Five Iranian nuclear scientists and the head of the country's ballistic missile programme have been killed since 2007. The regime has accused Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, of carrying out these assassinations.

//http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10350285/Iranian-cyber-warfare-commander-shot-dead-in-suspected-assassination.html

It might not have been Mossad or the CIA, but it could have been counter-revolutionaries.  Personally, I don't think it was the counter-revolutionaries.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

They're probably acts of war, but in order to provoke war one side or the other needs to be willing to go to war. I doubt either side would want to have their nation reduced to rubble..

[Shiranu]

We (us or Israel, I would put my money on us) also murdered Iranian civilian scientists earlier this year/last by having motorcyclists strap bombs to the side of cars (just noticed the article mentioned that).

If we would declare war on Iran if they did it to us, then I think it is an act of war. And you can bet your ass if civilian scientists and the head of one of our cyber programmes was killed and we suspected Iran or a proxy-state of theirs we would already have 3/4ths of the military in Tehran.

[LikelyToBreak]

AllPurposeAtheist wrote:

They're probably acts of war, but in order to provoke war one side or the other needs to be willing to go to war. I doubt either side would want to have their nation reduced to rubble..

APA, do you think the U.S. or Israel could be reduced to rubble by Iran?  The other way around it could happen, but I don't think Iran could successfully reduce Israel to rubble, before Israel nuked the crap out of Iran.  Just a thought.

Shiranu, if it was the CIA or the CIA helped Mossad, and Iran could prove it, would you feel betrayed by your government?  I would.

[Shiranu]

AllPurposeAtheist wrote:

They're probably acts of war, but in order to provoke war one side or the other needs to be willing to go to war. I doubt either side would want to have their nation reduced to rubble..

APA, do you think the U.S. or Israel could be reduced to rubble by Iran?  The other way around it could happen, but I don't think Iran could successfully reduce Israel to rubble, before Israel nuked the crap out of Iran.  Just a thought.

Shiranu, if it was the CIA or the CIA helped Mossad, and Iran could prove it, would you feel betrayed by your government?  I would.

Betrayed? Not really, this is the same CIA that tortured civilians and provided weapons to the Contras (which then found its way into Iranian hands) who would overthrow presidents they didn't like in South America, provided training and weapons to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan (who later committed the worse attack on American soil) for their support against the Russians and opium to bring back to the States to sell in inner-cities and overthrew a democratically elected, secular president in Iran so that Britain/British-Petrol wouldn't have their oil assets in nationalized... leading to the religious takeover (amongst a whole list of crimes against humanity the CIA has committed in its time around the world).

I cant feel betrayed by the CIA because I have never felt they had America's best interests in mind nor provided security to its people; in truth they have done the exact opposite in turning country after country against us.

(You might not have guessed it, but I am very opinionated about the CIA :P)

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Iran is in no mood for war and contrary to popular opinion neither is Israel. They're in no position to start firing off nukes in the middle east without starting an uncontainable shit storm. That's in nobody's interest.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'd say it is an act of war, but for it to become a full fledged war the injured party has to respond.  Iran doesn't want to respond.  They're really not that aggressive.

[Jason78]

They're probably acts of war, but in order to provoke war one side or the other needs to be willing to go to war. I doubt either side would want to have their nation reduced to rubble..

You also need a fair degree of certainty as to the bugger that did it.  Going to war is one thing, but there's no indignation quite like righteous indignation to motivate a populace.

[Solitary]

There's a few crackers (not hackers) out there I'd like to assassinate for destroying a few computer hard drives with Trojans and viruses I've had.  :shock:     Solitary

[mykcob4]

If foreign assassinations are an act of war, what do you think of this:

The head of Iran's cyber warfare programme has been shot dead, triggering further accusations that outside powers are carrying out targeted assassinations of key figures in the country's security apparatus.

Mojtaba Ahmadi, who served as commander of the Cyber War Headquarters, was found dead in a wooded area near the town of Karaj, north-west of the capital, Tehran. Five Iranian nuclear scientists and the head of the country's ballistic missile programme have been killed since 2007. The regime has accused Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, of carrying out these assassinations.

//http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10350285/Iranian-cyber-warfare-commander-shot-dead-in-suspected-assassination.html
It might not have been Mossad or the CIA, but it could have been counter-revolutionaries.  Personally, I don't think it was the counter-revolutionaries.

By law this nation considers assassinations of heads of state illegal. Of course any assassination is a crime and if a foriegn power committed the crime it is an act of war. How a nation responds is the question not what the crime actually is.
I doubt very seriously if it were socalled counter-revolutionaries. I doubt that there is a strong enough well organized group like that in Iran.
The CIA doesn't actually have people that carry out such assignments. The CIA is an intellegence service. They would pay operatives to committ an act like that and getting anyone of authority to sanction such an act would be very hard to do. Now they would most likely know who did it and signed off on such a deal, but doing it or funding it would be very hard for the CIA to do. People watch too many movies. They thing that there are CIA kill teams, and black ops teams and a miriad of clandestine factions in the CIA. Granted there are operations that aren't public maybe even deep dark departments in the CIA that isn't public, but actually carrying out a kill sanction? That is far fetched. The CIA uses the military and operatives not actual CIA employees. Most CIA employees are CPA graduates, computer techs, engineers, lawyers. A small group are recruited from the military intelligence services. Combatants even smaller in number and mostly for security rather than attack. The CIA does recruit military personel and use them to train up armies in foriegn nations, but they don't do the actual fighting as a rule. It's not James Bond.

[LikelyToBreak]

Shiranu wrote in part:

Betrayed? Not really, this is the same CIA that tortured civilians and provided weapons to the Contras (which then found its way into Iranian hands) who would overthrow presidents they didn't like in South America, provided training and weapons to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan (who later committed the worse attack on American soil) for their support against the Russians and opium to bring back to the States to sell in inner-cities and overthrew a democratically elected, secular president in Iran so that Britain/British-Petrol wouldn't have their oil assets in nationalized... leading to the religious takeover (amongst a whole list of crimes against humanity the CIA has committed in its time around the world).

You forgot bringing in cocaine from South America and supporting outlaw gangs to distribute the cocaine and heroin.  But, I am just being nit-picky.  I think you pretty well nailed it.

Shiranu wrote in part:

I cant feel betrayed by the CIA because I have never felt they had America's best interests in mind nor provided security to its people; in truth they have done the exact opposite in turning country after country against us.

Agreed.  But, the last President who went against the CIA and tried to reign them in, was conveniently killed by a lone crazed FBI informant, who was also killed by a lone crazed Nixon supporter with ties to organized crime.  

Jason78 wrote in part:

Going to war is one thing, but there's no indignation quite like righteous indignation to motivate a populace.

Like the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Or maybe like throwing babies out of incubators?  Or maybe like having weapons of mass destruction?

Solitary wrote in part:

There's a few crackers (not hackers) out there I'd like to assassinate for destroying a few computer hard drives with Trojans and viruses I've had. :shock: Solitary

That might be considered justifiable homicide.  

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The CIA does recruit military personel and use them to train up armies in foriegn nations, but they don't do the actual fighting as a rule. It's not James Bond.

I agree.  It is not like the Bond movies.  More like the Godfather movies.  So much so, that known mafia members were recruited by the OSS, the precursor to the CIA,  during the WWII.  

So, is Vinnie any less guilty if he pays Tony to knock off Mario?  If the CIA is conducting acts of war in our name, are you okay with it?

AllPurposeAtheist wrote in part:

Iran is in no mood for war and contrary to popular opinion neither is Israel.

So, if it is Mossad doing this, they are doing it without the support of the Israeli people.  Kind of like the CIA running drugs against the will of the American people.  Sound about right?

[mykcob4]

Shiranu wrote in part:

Betrayed? Not really, this is the same CIA that tortured civilians and provided weapons to the Contras (which then found its way into Iranian hands) who would overthrow presidents they didn't like in South America, provided training and weapons to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan (who later committed the worse attack on American soil) for their support against the Russians and opium to bring back to the States to sell in inner-cities and overthrew a democratically elected, secular president in Iran so that Britain/British-Petrol wouldn't have their oil assets in nationalized... leading to the religious takeover (amongst a whole list of crimes against humanity the CIA has committed in its time around the world).

You forgot bringing in cocaine from South America and supporting outlaw gangs to distribute the cocaine and heroin.  But, I am just being nit-picky.  I think you pretty well nailed it.

Shiranu wrote in part:

I cant feel betrayed by the CIA because I have never felt they had America's best interests in mind nor provided security to its people; in truth they have done the exact opposite in turning country after country against us.

Agreed.  But, the last President who went against the CIA and tried to reign them in, was conveniently killed by a lone crazed FBI informant, who was also killed by a lone crazed Nixon supporter with ties to organized crime.  

Jason78 wrote in part:

Going to war is one thing, but there's no indignation quite like righteous indignation to motivate a populace.

Like the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Or maybe like throwing babies out of incubators?  Or maybe like having weapons of mass destruction?

Solitary wrote in part:

There's a few crackers (not hackers) out there I'd like to assassinate for destroying a few computer hard drives with Trojans and viruses I've had. :shock: Solitary

That might be considered justifiable homicide.  

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The CIA does recruit military personel and use them to train up armies in foriegn nations, but they don't do the actual fighting as a rule. It's not James Bond.

I agree.  It is not like the Bond movies.  More like the Godfather movies.  So much so, that known mafia members were recruited by the OSS, the precursor to the CIA,  during the WWII.  

So, is Vinnie any less guilty if he pays Tony to knock off Mario?  If the CIA is conducting acts of war in our name, are you okay with it?

AllPurposeAtheist wrote in part:

Iran is in no mood for war and contrary to popular opinion neither is Israel.

So, if it is Mossad doing this, they are doing it without the support of the Israeli people.  Kind of like the CIA running drugs against the will of the American people.  Sound about right?

I do think it's like the mafia but way more sophisticated. The mafia is inept and full of morons. It's more like corrupt corporate criminals. And no it isn't any less of a crime if the CIA pays operatives to carry out kill missions. Carter passed a law that forbid rigging elections in foriegn lands and the assassination of foriegn heads of state. It would take a declaration of war to actually legally kill a foriegn head of state according to our laws. So the CIA in it's attempt to gather information would finance disatent groups in various nations. They would supply them with weapons. That is if it is approved by a joint seccession of the security council. That means that the executive branch cannot sanction a "kill" order without the approval of ranking house and senate members that make up the joint security counsel. Of course Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, just ignored that law and sanctioned all sorts of criminal activity, from laundering money in Panama, selling drugs to east LA gangs, funding opium in Afghanistan, and using hidden funds from corporate sponcers to operate different clandestine programs. Rendition is just such a program.

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4 wrote in part:

I do think it's like the mafia but way more sophisticated. The mafia is inept and full of morons. It's more like corrupt corporate criminals. And no it isn't any less of a crime if the CIA pays operatives to carry out kill missions.

Better sit down, take a deep breath, here it comes, ... I agree.

mykcob4 wrote in part:

That means that the executive branch cannot sanction a "kill" order without the approval of ranking house and senate members that make up the joint security counsel.

Yes, that is how is it supposed to work, but every President since Kennedy, has used plausible deniability to get around the law.  //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Seeing as how elements in the CIA have always been unaccountable to the American people, I don't think just because the current leader seems to be a nice guy, that they have changed.  
//http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/cia-increases-training-of-syrian-rebels-seen-as-moderates-1.244859

The Washington Post
Published: October 3, 2013

WASHINGTON — The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, U.S.-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country's civil war, U.S. officials said.

I realize the Stars and Stripes is a conservative yellow journalistic rag, but I think they are right about this.  Plausible deniability is now Obama's thing, just like it was for Bush with Rendition.  The names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I know it sounds far fetched, but when we're at war we do attempt to kill our enemies. Perhaps you'd prefer we merely capture them and hold them in POW camps for the duration, but odd as it sounds for better or worse our military and spy apparatus is designed to kill people.

[LikelyToBreak]

AllPurposeAtheist wrote:

I know it sounds far fetched, but when we're at war we do attempt to kill our enemies. Perhaps you'd prefer we merely capture them and hold them in POW camps for the duration, but odd as it sounds for better or worse our military and spy apparatus is designed to kill people.

We are not at war with Iran.  Our military is designed to kill people.  Which is why the SEALs went in and killed Osama Bin Laden.  Spies are intended to gather information, preferably without anyone knowing they have the information, and getting the information to those who can use it.  Without approval from "a joint seccession of the security council," as mykcob4 pointed out, it is illegal to arm terrorists.  Or as the Iranians call them, counter-revolutionaries.  

Maybe a joint session of the security council approved arming the Syrian rebels and the Iranian counter-revolutionaries, and just have not told the American public.  So, much for an open administration, if that is the case.