Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially ifprominent or important.[1][2] It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, personal, financial, or militarymotives.[3] Assassinations are ordered by both individuals and organizations, and are carried out by their accomplices. Acts of assassination have been performed sinceancient times. A person who carries out an assassination is called anassassin.[4]
Founded byHassan-i Sabbah, the Assassins were active in theNear East from the 11th to the 13th centuries. The group killed members of theAbbasid,Seljuk,Fatimid, and ChristianCrusader elite for political and religious reasons.[9]
Although it is commonly believed that members of the Order of Assassins were under the influence ofhashish during their killings or during their indoctrination, there is debate as to whether these claims have merit, with many Eastern writers and an increasing number of Western academics coming to believe that drug-taking was not the key feature behind the name.[10]
The term "assassinare" (assassin) was used inMedieval Latin from the mid 13th century.[7]
The earliest known use of the verb "to assassinate" in printed English was byMatthew Sutcliffe inA Briefe Replie to a Certaine Odious and Slanderous Libel, Lately Published by a Seditious Jesuite, a pamphlet printed in 1600, five years before it was used inMacbeth byWilliam Shakespeare (1605).[11][12]
Some famous assassination victims arePhilip II of Macedon (336 BC), the father ofAlexander the Great, and Roman dictatorJulius Caesar (44 BC).[20]Emperors of Rome often met their end in this way, as did many of the MuslimShia Imams hundreds of years later. Three successive Rashidun caliphs (Umar,Uthman Ibn Affan, andAli ibn Abi Talib) were assassinated in early civil conflicts between Muslims. The practice was also well known in ancient China, as inJing Ke's failed assassination ofQin kingYing Zheng in 227 BC. Whilst many assassinations were performed by individuals or small groups, there were also specialized units who used a collective group of people to perform more than one assassination. The earliest were thesicarii in 6 AD, who predated the Middle EasternAssassins and Japaneseshinobis by centuries.[21][22]
In theMiddle Ages,regicide was rare in Western Europe, but it was a recurring theme in theEastern Roman Empire. Strangling in the bathtub was the most commonly used method. With theRenaissance,tyrannicide—or assassination for personal or political reasons—became more common again in Western Europe.[23]
During the 16th and 17th centuries, international lawyers began to voice condemnation of assassinations of leaders.Balthazar Ayala has been described as "the first prominent jurist to condemn the use of assassination in foreign policy".[24]Alberico Gentili condemned assassinations in a 1598 publication where he appealed to the self-interest of leaders: (i) assassinations had adverse short-term consequences by arousing the ire of the assassinated leader's successor, and (ii) assassinations had the adverse long-term consequences of causing disorder and chaos.[24]Hugo Grotius's works on the law of war strictly forbade assassinations, arguing that killing was only permissible on the battlefield.[24] In the modern world, the killing of important people began to become more than a tool in power struggles between rulers themselves and was also used for political symbolism, such as in thepropaganda of the deed.[25]
In Japan, a group of assassins called theFour Hitokiri of the Bakumatsu killed a number of people, includingIi Naosuke who was the head of administration for the Tokugawa shogunate, during theBoshin War.[26] Most of the assassinations in Japan were committed with bladed weaponry, a trait that was carried on into modern history. A video-record exists of theassassination of Inejiro Asanuma, using a sword.[27]
Most major powers repudiated Cold War assassination tactics, but many allege that was merely a smokescreen for political benefit and that covert and illegal training of assassins continues today, with Russia, Israel, the U.S.,Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and other nations accused of engaging in such operations.[35] After theIranian Revolution of 1979, the new Islamic government of Iran began an international campaign of assassination that lasted into the 1990s. At least 162 killings in 19 countries have been linked to the senior leadership of theIslamic Republic of Iran.[36] The campaign came to an end after theMykonos restaurant assassinations because a German court publicly implicated senior members of the government and issued arrest warrants forAli Fallahian, the head of Iranian intelligence.[37] Evidence indicates that Fallahian's personal involvement and individual responsibility for the murders were far more pervasive than his current indictment record represents.[38]
On 2 September 2022, a 35 year old Brazilian national attempted to assassinate the then vice-president of Argentina,Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. However, the attempt was unsuccessful because the assassin's gun jammed.[44]
In 2012,The New York Times revealed that the Obama administration maintained a "kill list" containing terrorism suspects.[45] The list is sometimes referred to as a "disposition matrix," and President Obama made a final decision on whether anyone listed would be killed, without court oversight and without trial.[46] In September 2011, American citizensAnwar Al-Awlaki andSamir Khan were assassinated inYemen by the United States government via drone strikes. Two weeks later, Awlaki's 16-year-old son, also an American citizen, was killed in a strike targetingIbrahim al-Banna, a senior operative inAl-Qaeda.[47][48] Al-Banna was not killed in the strike.[47]
The functions of theninja included espionage,sabotage and assassination.
Assassination for military purposes has long been espoused:Sun Tzu, writing around 500 BC, argued in favor of using assassination in his bookThe Art of War. Over 2000 years later, in his bookThe Prince,Machiavelli also advises rulers to assassinate enemies whenever possible to prevent them from posing a threat.[49] An army and even a nation might be based upon and around aparticularly strong, canny, or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war.
For similar and additional reasons, assassination has also sometimes been used in the conduct offoreign policy. The costs and benefits of such actions are difficult to compute. It may not be clear whether the assassinated leader gets replaced with a more or less competent successor, whether the assassination provokes ire in the state in question, whether the assassination leads to souring domestic public opinion, and whether the assassination provokes condemnation from third-parties.[50][24] One study found that perceptual biases held by leaders often negatively affect decision making in that area, and decisions to go forward with assassinations often reflect the vague hope that any successor might be better.[50]
In both military and foreign policy assassinations, there is the risk that the target could be replaced by an even more competent leader, or that such a killing (or a failed attempt) will prompt the masses to contemn the killers and support the leader's cause more strongly. Faced with particularly brilliant leaders, that possibility has in various instances been risked, such as in the attempts to kill the AthenianAlcibiades during thePeloponnesian War. A number of additional examples fromWorld War II show how assassination was used as a tool:
Theassassination of Reinhard Heydrich in Prague on May 27, 1942, by the British and Czechoslovak government-in-exile. That case illustrates the difficulty of comparing the benefits of a foreign policy goal (strengthening the legitimacy and influence of theCzechoslovak government-in-exile in London) against the possible costs resulting from an assassination (theLidice massacre).[50]
The American interception of AdmiralIsoroku Yamamoto's plane during World War II after his travel route had been decrypted.
Operation Gaff was a planned British commando raid to capture or kill the German field marshalErwin Rommel, also known as "The Desert Fox".[51]
Use of assassination has continued in more recent conflicts:
During theVietnam War, the US engaged in thePhoenix Program to assassinateViet Cong leaders and sympathizers. It killed between 6,000 and 41,000 people, with official "targets" of 1,800 per month.[52][53][54]
Insurgent groups have often employed assassination as a tool to further their causes. Assassinations provide several functions for such groups: the removal of specific enemies and as propaganda tools to focus the attention of media and politics on their cause.[citation needed]
Basque separatistsETA in Spain assassinated many security and political figures since the late 1960s, notably the president of theFrancoist government of Spain,Luis Carrero Blanco, 1st Duke of Carrero-Blanco Grandee of Spain, in 1973. In the early 1990s, it also began to target academics, journalists and local politicians who publicly disagreed with it.[59]
TheRed Brigades in Italy carried out assassinations of political figures and, to a lesser extent, so did theRed Army Faction in Germany in the 1970s and the 1980s.[60]
In theVietnam War, communist insurgents routinely assassinated government officials and individual civilians deemed to offend or rival the revolutionary movement. Such attacks, along with widespread military activity by insurgent bands, almost brought theNgo Dinh Diem regime to collapse before the US intervened.[61]
A major study about assassination attempts in the US in the second half of the 20th century came to the conclusion that most prospective assassins spend copious amounts of time planning and preparing for their attempts. Assassinations are thus rarely "impulsive" actions.[62]
However, about 25% of the actual attackers were found to bedelusional, a figure that rose to 60% with "near-lethal approachers" (people apprehended before reaching their targets). That shows that while mental instability plays a role in many modern assassinations, the more delusional attackers are less likely to succeed in their attempts. The report also found that around two-thirds of attackers had previously been arrested, not necessarily for related offenses; 44% had a history of serious depression, and 39% had a history of substance abuse.[62]
With the advent of effective ranged weaponry and laterfirearms, the position of an assassination target was more precarious. Bodyguards were no longer enough to deter determined killers, who no longer needed to engage directly or even to subvert the guard to kill the leader in question. Moreover, the engagement of targets at greater distances dramatically increased the chances for assassins to survive since they could quickly flee the scene. The first heads of government to be assassinated with a firearm wereJames Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, the regent of Scotland, in 1570, andWilliam the Silent, the Prince of Orange of the Netherlands, in 1584.Gunpowder and other explosives also allowed the use of bombs or even greater concentrations of explosives for deeds requiring a larger touch.[citation needed]
Explosives, especially thecar bomb, become far more common in modern history, withgrenades and remote-triggered land mines also used, especially in the Middle East and the Balkans; the initial attempt onArchduke Franz Ferdinand's life was with a grenade. With heavy weapons, therocket-propelled grenade (RPG) has become a useful tool given the popularity of armored cars (discussed below), and Israeli forces have pioneered the use of aircraft-mounted missiles,[63] as well as the innovative use of explosive devices.[citation needed]
Asniper with a precision rifle is often used in fictional assassinations; however, certain pragmatic difficulties attend long-range shooting, including finding a hidden shooting position with a clear line of sight, detailed advance knowledge of the intended victim's travel plans, the ability to identify the target at long range, and the ability to score a first-round lethal hit at long range, which is usually measured in hundreds of meters. A dedicatedsniper rifle is also expensive, often costing thousands of dollars because of the high level of precision machining and handfinishing required to achieve extreme accuracy.[64]
Despite their comparative disadvantages, handguns are more easily concealable and so are much more commonly used than rifles. Of the 74 principal incidents evaluated in a major study about assassination attempts in the US in the second half of the 20th century, 51% were undertaken by a handgun, 30% with a rifle or shotgun, 15% used knives, and 8% explosives (the use of multiple weapons/methods was reported in 16% of all cases).[62]
In the case of state-sponsored assassination, poisoning can be more easily denied.Georgi Markov, a dissident fromBulgaria, was assassinated byricin poisoning. A tiny pellet containing the poison was injected into his leg through a specially designedumbrella. Widespread allegations involving the Bulgarian government and theKGB have not led to any legal results. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was learned that the KGB had developed an umbrella that could inject ricin pellets into a victim, and two former KGB agents who defected stated that the agency assisted in the murder.[65] TheCIA made severalattempts to assassinate Fidel Castro; many of the schemes involving poisoning his cigars. In the late 1950s, the KGB assassinBohdan Stashynsky killed Ukrainian nationalist leadersLev Rebet andStepan Bandera with a spray gun that fired a jet of poison gas from a crushedcyanide ampule, making their deaths look like heart attacks.[66] A 2006 case in the UK concerned theassassination of Alexander Litvinenko who was given a lethal dose of radioactivepolonium-210, possibly passed to him in aerosol form sprayed directly onto his food.[67]
Targeted killing is the intentional killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person asserted to be taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under theThird Geneva Convention.[68] It is a different term and concept from that of "targeted violence", as used by specialists who study violence.[citation needed]
When people call a targeted killing an "assassination", they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States ... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.[71]
Author and former U.S. Army Captain Matthew J. Morgan argued that "there is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing... targeted killing [is] not synonymous with assassination. Assassination... constitutes an illegal killing."[72] Similarly,Amos Guiora, a professor of law at theUniversity of Utah, wrote, "Targeted killing is... not an assassination."[73]Steve David, professor of international relations atJohns Hopkins University, wrote, "There are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination."Syracuse Law William Banks andGW Law Peter Raven-Hansen wrote, "Targeted killing of terrorists is... not unlawful and would not constitute assassination."[74] Rory Miller writes: "Targeted killing... is not 'assassination.'"[75] Eric Patterson and Teresa Casale wrote, "Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination."[76]
On the other hand, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union also states on its website, "A program of targeted killing far from any battlefield, without charge or trial, violates the constitutional guarantee ofdue process. It also violatesinternational law, under whichlethal force may be used outside armed conflict zones only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats, when non-lethal means are not available. Targeting people who are suspected of terrorism for execution, far from any war zone, turns the whole world into a battlefield."[77]
Yael Stein, the research director ofB'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, also stated in her article "By Any Name Illegal and Immoral: Response to 'Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing'":[78]
The argument that this policy affords the public a sense of revenge and retribution could serve to justify acts both illegal and immoral. Clearly, lawbreakers ought to be punished. Yet, no matter how horrific their deeds, as the targeting of Israeli civilians indeed is, they should be punished according to the law. David's arguments could, in principle, justify the abolition of formal legal systems altogether.
Targeted killing has become a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel in their fights against terrorism.[68][79] The tactic can raise complex questions and lead to contentious disputes as to the legal basis for its application, who qualifies as an appropriate "hit list" target, and what circumstances must exist before the tactic may be used.[68] Opinions range from people considering it a legal form of self-defense that decreases terrorism to people calling it anextrajudicial killing that lacks due process and leads to further violence.[68][71][80][81] Methods used have included firingHellfire missiles fromPredator orReaperdrones (unmanned, remote-controlled planes), detonating a cell phone bomb, and long-rangesniper shooting. Countries such as the US (in Pakistan and Yemen) and Israel (in the West Bank and Gaza) have used targeted killing to eliminate members of groups such asAl-Qaeda andHamas.[68] In early 2010, with President Obama's approval,Anwar al-Awlaki became the firstUS citizen to be publicly approved for targeted killing by theCentral Intelligence Agency. Awlaki was killed in adrone strike in September 2011.[82][83]
United Nations investigatorBen Emmerson said that US drone strikes may have violatedinternational humanitarian law.[84][85]The Intercept reported, "Between January 2012 and February 2013,U.S. special operations airstrikes [in northeastern Afghanistan] killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets."[86]
One of the earliest forms of defense against assassins was employingbodyguards, who act as a shield for the potential target; keep a lookout for potential attackers, sometimes in advance, such as on a parade route; and putting themselves in harm's way, both by simple presence, showing that physical force is available to protect the target,[62][87] and by shielding the target if any attack occurs. To neutralize an attacker, bodyguards are typically armed as much as legal and practical concerns permit.[citation needed]
Notable examples of bodyguards include the RomanPraetorian Guard or the OttomanJanissaries, but in both cases, the protectors sometimes became assassins themselves, exploiting their power to make thehead of state a virtual hostage or killing the very leaders whom they were supposed to protect. The loyalty of individual bodyguards is an important question as well, especially for leaders who oversee states with strong ethnic or religious divisions. Failure to realize such divided loyalties allowed the assassination of Indian Prime MinisterIndira Gandhi, who was assassinated by twoSikh bodyguards in 1984.[citation needed][88]
The bodyguard function was often executed by the leader's most loyal warriors, and it was extremely effective throughout most of early human history, which led assassins to attempt stealthy means, such aspoison, whose risk was reduced by havinganother person taste the leader's food first.[citation needed]
With the advent of gunpowder, ranged assassination via bombs or firearms became possible. One of the first reactions was simply to increase the guard, creating what at times might seem a small army trailing every leader. Another was to begin clearing large areas whenever a leader was present to the point that entire sections of a city might be shut down.[citation needed]
As the 20th century dawned, the prevalence and capability of assassins grew quickly, as did measures to protect against them. For the first time,armored cars or limousines were put into service for safer transport, with modern versions virtually invulnerable tosmall arms fire, smaller bombs andmines.[89]Bulletproof vests also began to be used, but since they were of limited utility, restricting movement and leaving the head unprotected, they tended to be worn only during high-profile public events, if at all.[citation needed]
Access to famous people also became more and more restricted;[90] potential visitors would be forced through numerous different checks before being granted access to the official in question, and as communication became better and information technology more prevalent, it has become all but impossible for a would-be killer to get close enough to the personage at work or in private life to effect an attempt on their life, especially with the common use ofmetal andbomb detectors.
Most modern assassinations have been committed either during a public performance or during transport, both because of weaker security and security lapses, such as with U.S. PresidentJohn F. Kennedy and former Pakistani Prime MinisterBenazir Bhutto, or as part of a coup d'état in which security is either overwhelmed or completely removed, such as withCongolese Prime MinisterPatrice Lumumba.[citation needed]
The methods used for protection by famous people have sometimes evoked negative reactions by the public, with some resenting the separation from their officials or major figures. One example might be traveling in a car protected by a bubble of clearbulletproof glass, such as theMRAP-likePopemobile ofPope John Paul II, built following an attempt at his life. Politicians often resent the need for separation and sometimes send their bodyguards away from them for personal or publicity reasons. US PresidentWilliam McKinley did so at the public reception in which he was assassinated.[90]
Other potential targets go into seclusion and are rarely heard from or seen in public, such as writerSalman Rushdie. A related form of protection is the use ofbody doubles, people with similar builds to those they are expected to impersonate. These people are thenmade up and, in some cases, undergoplastic surgery to look like the target, with the body double then taking the place of the person in high-risk situations. According to Joe R. Reeder, Under Secretary of the Army from 1993 to 1997,Fidel Castro used body doubles.[91]
US Secret Service protective agents receive training in the psychology of assassins.[92]
^Black's Law Dictionary "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for money or for political reasons" (Legal Research, Analysis and Writing by William H. Putmanp. 215 andEichensehr, Kristen (May 6, 2006)."On the Offensive — Assassination Policy Under International Law".Harvard International Review. Archived fromthe original on December 6, 2010.
^A briefe replie to a certaine odious and slanderous libel, lately published by a seditious Iesuite. Imprinted at London: By Arn. Hatfield, 1600 (STC 23453) p. 103
^"assassinate, v." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2016. Web. August 11, 2016.
^Pichtel, John,Terrorism and WMDs: Awareness and Response, CRC Press (April 25, 2011) pp. 3–4.ISBN978-1439851753
^Ross, Jeffrey Ian,Religion and Violence: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict from Antiquity to the Present, Routledge (January 15, 2011), Chapter: Sicarii. 978-0765620484
^Morgan, Matthew J. (2009).The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape: The Day that Changed Everything?. Palgrave Macmillan.ISBN978-0-230-60838-2.[page needed]
Kretzmer, David (April 2005). "Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?".European Journal of International Law.16 (2):171–212.doi:10.1093/ejil/chi114.
