When is Regicide Okay?

[bigbadgerjohnny]

During the Bush years I kept mulling this question over in my mind and soothed my battered psyche with visions of a nice little family Dubya firing line.  Admittedly, killing former leaders would make the USA look identical to various South American dictatorships we're always installing in the aftermath of a CIA assassination or two, and democracy as we know it would be a thing of the past.

Decapitating Louis and Charles aroused a lot of sentiment in the populace, of course, and even more for the last Czar's family.  Marxists, with whom I identify from time to time, would tell you that their structural position in society was inexcusable, guilt by association, etc., and their death a historical justice.  But the Bush daughters I can't see filling that same structural position, no matter how satisfying it might be.  Still, they're unlikely to gather anywhere near the adoration Anastasia got, and it would have to be a historical good to cut off Barbara's spawn from reproducing further.

And checking out the Bushes would doubtless send them straight into sainthood along with the Gipper and other powerful morons.

What we ought to have, though, is a good barn-burning in Crawford, filled with a nice County Fair-style water-boarding game, and a little sensory overload chamber a la Guantanamo.  You could even podcast it realtime!

But perhaps, in the interests of strength through diversity, their monomania and ignorance should be kept around in our communal DNA, as necessary brutalizations to be kept in the wings in times of emergency?  The old ugly face you drag out for those moments when America needs to scowl?

[Aizen]

in macbeth

[Rob]

Well, I think any "royalty" should be fair game, at any time. They're nothing but inbred elitists who leech off the working people of their countries and demand respect in return.

[Lief 🗽]

Always.

[The Mikado]

Never...well, hardly ever.  In 1789 I'd like to think that I'd have been gutsy enough to stand my ground at Versailles and die protecting my Sovereign, Louis XVI By Grace of God King of France from the canaille of Paris, but more likely, I'd have tried to escape to England as soon as I figured out what was going on.

PS: By 1789 I mean 1789-1793.

[John Dibble]

When the monarch isn't doing what he or she should be doing, which is incidentally the same as with the leaders in any other political system - protecting the people, their rights, and their general welfare. If a leader is truly oppressive then getting rid of him or her with lethal force can usually be considered justified.

The people above who say it's justified for any monarch forget that there have been good monarchs in history that have done good things for their people. Killing a good monarch can be harmful to the people. There's also been many monarchs who might have been arrogant and used their power and wealth too liberally, but still attended to their duties well enough that killing them would not be beneficial to the people.

[Smid]

I am opposed to capital punishment, so I don't care what supposed crimes the sovereign has committed, I would be opposed to regicide. This stance becomes slightly different for me when it changes from a domestic issue to an international relations policy. There may be certain instances where the assassination of a Head of State prevents a war, or shortens a war, in which case it is a valid for a nation to consider it. Of course, that doesn't mean that it should happen - an assassination of Hitler may actually have prolonged WWII if the decisions he was making were strategically unsound.

[King]

I would put forth to the senate a resolution to a bill that included this. One that permited regicide in certain situations and not in others. But, I would not vote on a bill that either permitted regicide in all situations or one that did not permit regicide in all situations. I think that we need a compromise between those two.

[bigbadgerjohnny]

There may be certain instances where the assassination of a Head of State prevents a war, or shortens a war, in which case it is a valid for a nation to consider it. Of course, that doesn't mean that it should happen - an assassination of Hitler may actually have prolonged WWII if the decisions he was making were strategically unsound.

I read recently that the Allies were somewhat pleased that the 1944 assassination of Hitler plot failed, as it would have made peace negotiations with a disparate body of military commanders far too easy, and the Allied Powers might have been pressured into making peace before they wanted to.

Certainly there's a healthy similarity between being against capital punishment and regicide, but why should it be OK to kill others' leaders before your own?  The CIA is happy to do so when it serves US monied interests, but other moral considerations (except as uttered by various red-baiters, ie., saving the people of Venezuela from godless communism is in and of itself a moral good) generally don't figure in such discussions.

And then we have the bizarre scene of Allah Akbar cries and Sunni death-squad chants at Hussein's hanging:  I'd probably be willing to sentence a leader like Hussein to death if I were the judge, or to participate in a spontaneous beheading a la the french revolution, but the context is extremely important, and the justifications the murderers (or just tyrannicides) agree on.

[dead0man]

When the monarch isn't doing what he or she should be doing, which is incidentally the same as with the leaders in any other political system - protecting the people, their rights, and their general welfare. If a leader is truly oppressive then getting rid of him or her with lethal force can usually be considered justified.

The people above who say it's justified for any monarch forget that there have been good monarchs in history that have done good things for their people. Killing a good monarch can be harmful to the people. There's also been many monarchs who might have been arrogant and used their power and wealth too liberally, but still attended to their duties well enough that killing them would not be beneficial to the people.

Well sure, but wouldn't the future be better served by killing the king in the here and now if given the option.  No matter how great the current king is, there is no guarantee his son will be or that you'll get the chance to have his head if he is not.

[bigbadgerjohnny]

Release the hounds.

[John Dibble]

When the monarch isn't doing what he or she should be doing, which is incidentally the same as with the leaders in any other political system - protecting the people, their rights, and their general welfare. If a leader is truly oppressive then getting rid of him or her with lethal force can usually be considered justified.

The people above who say it's justified for any monarch forget that there have been good monarchs in history that have done good things for their people. Killing a good monarch can be harmful to the people. There's also been many monarchs who might have been arrogant and used their power and wealth too liberally, but still attended to their duties well enough that killing them would not be beneficial to the people.

Well sure, but wouldn't the future be better served by killing the king in the here and now if given the option.  No matter how great the current king is, there is no guarantee his son will be or that you'll get the chance to have his head if he is not.

And there's no guarantee that our next democratically elected leader isn't going to turn into a tyrant and become one of those guys with the title "President For Life", is there? Or that you'll have a chance at his head. We might as well overthrow the government right now, just in case.

Sounds silly if you think about it that way, doesn't it? Besides, if the good king's son is giving you reason to worry, why not just kill him instead and leave the good king to rule for a few more years?

[dead0man]

And there's no guarantee that our next democratically elected leader isn't going to turn into a tyrant and become one of those guys with the title "President For Life", is there? Or that you'll have a chance at his head. We might as well overthrow the government right now, just in case.

I'm game!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And we are still left with the problem that happens when the good king dies.  Who replaces him?  This is why Monarchies suck.

[John Dibble]

And there's no guarantee that our next democratically elected leader isn't going to turn into a tyrant and become one of those guys with the title "President For Life", is there? Or that you'll have a chance at his head. We might as well overthrow the government right now, just in case.

I'm game!

And we replace it with... what? Another democratically elected government with the same risks? A military dictatorship? A contest whereby the person who can fart the loudest and the longest gets to be king for a week?

Also I feel the need to remind you there's no guarantee that our revolutionary leaders won't turn out to be complete jerks - see the French Revolution for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And we are still left with the problem that happens when the good king dies.  Who replaces him?  This is why Monarchies suck.
[/quote]

The king will have other relatives most likely, and there's typically a rather clear line of succession. If the next guy on the list is also a douche, kill him too, and so on and so forth.

Killing the leader of a country, regardless of its type of government, will invite instability. That risks the introduction of someone bad who will take advantage of the instability. Therefore it's really only good to assassinate or overthrow the leader of the government if he's already a tyrant.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Always.

[pbrower2a]

There may be certain instances where the assassination of a Head of State prevents a war, or shortens a war, in which case it is a valid for a nation to consider it. Of course, that doesn't mean that it should happen - an assassination of Hitler may actually have prolonged WWII if the decisions he was making were strategically unsound.

I read recently that the Allies were somewhat pleased that the 1944 assassination of Hitler plot failed, as it would have made peace negotiations with a disparate body of military commanders far too easy, and the Allied Powers might have been pressured into making peace before they wanted to.


Certainly there's a healthy similarity between being against capital punishment and regicide, but why should it be OK to kill others' leaders before your own?  The CIA is happy to do so when it serves US monied interests, but other moral considerations (except as uttered by various red-baiters, ie., saving the people of Venezuela from godless communism is in and of itself a moral good) generally don't figure in such discussions.

And then we have the bizarre scene of Allah Akbar cries and Sunni death-squad chants at Hussein's hanging:  I'd probably be willing to sentence a leader like Hussein to death if I were the judge, or to participate in a spontaneous beheading a la the french revolution, but the context is extremely important, and the justifications the murderers (or just tyrannicides) agree on.

Tyrannicide is one thing; regicide is another. Not even a crowned head is exempt from culpability for war crimes committed in his name; a reigning monarch can abdicate rather than sign criminal orders or participate in planning for crimes against humanity, military aggression, or war crimes. The line between a hereditary president (Kim Jong Il) and a monarch is slight. Nicolae Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein seem to have been headed in that direction; killing them was not so obviously regicide as it was tyrannicide. 

Regicide is an inappropriate means of dealing with an inconvenient crowned head.

[RosettaStoned]

Always.