7 ms·
So if these are not "law abiding" groups, then by definition part of what they do is illegal. Which is the word I used in my comment. I don't understand these
by kkoncevicius 5y ago
So if these are not "law abiding" groups, then by definition part of what they do is illegal. Which is the word I used in my comment.
I don't understand these replies.
- bawolff 5y agoI'm a different person than the one who said nothing is illegal. I think nothing is illegal in international relations is a cop-out answer (and not technically true. I dont know about this particular act, but there are plenty of illegal things under int law). Technically yes - its unlikely to be resolved by a court. However i think most people agree that in general assainations are at least morally repugant (although im sure some people think its justified sometimes). Anyways, lots of countries (Iran included) fund these type of spy groups. They do bad shit. That is their function. I imagine their masters think the ends justify means. Regardless, complaining that spy agencies are unethical is like complaining the mafia is unethical. Its just something that basically goes without saying.
- kkoncevicius 5y agoI agree with everything you wrote here, but we talk past each other. The article was disturbing and it left an impression on me. There aren't many articles bragging about assassinations; CIA doesn't do that and if it did there would be domestic opposition. Yet the tone of this article makes it clear that they are not worried about that. That's why I wrote the original comment. It's not about "complaining that spy agencies are unethical". Deep down I just don't like what it represents and I don't think any post-hoc rationalisation will change that.