Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Has being a Bond fan made you a supporter of extra-judicial killing/state-sponsored assassination?
Dragonpol
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
I've been thinking about this a lot of late so I thought I would start a thread on it to gauge the views of other Bond fans. I realise that the subject matter is a little bit controversial. The thread is not meant to invoke controversy, however. Let me say that from the get-go.
What I want to know is does your being a literary/cinematic James Bond fan make you more in favour of state-sponsored assassination (also referred to as extra-judicial killing) by spies/secret agents/special forces etc. against certain individuals (a recent example in the Navy SEALS assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011). President George W. Bush wanted the CIA agents to have a "licence to kill" in the hunt for Osama bin Laden after the Al-Queada September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the attempt to crash into the White House:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/22/afghanistan.terrorism6
Obviously, Ian Fleming came up with the idea of the "licence to kill in the line of duty" first and no doubt based it on his wartime experiences as Assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence for the duration of World War II and in particular on his 'Red Indians' in the 30 Assault Unit as well as with the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Ian Fleming himself famously suggested several ways that the CIA might assassinate Fidel Castro (including making his beard fall out and giving him explosive cigars).
There were several plots to kill Hitler during World War II and the SOE trained the two assassins who killed Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in the then Czechoslovakia (but which had the terrible consequence of the vengeful Nazis obliterating the Czech town of Lidice and everybody and everything in it).
On the other (anti-Western) side of the coin, during the Cold War the Soviets of course murdered defectors and traitors and we see this happening more recently in the cases of the Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov in September 1978 in London with a pellet containing the toxin ricin fired from an umbrella and Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006 with the radioactive poison Polonium 210, only to be found in Russian scientific labs. SMERSH was of course a Soviet liquidation organ of terror during World War II and it found its equivalents in the NKVD and the KGB (and perhaps even the FSB).
So, are we as Bond fans in favour of state assassination by the UK, the US or their allies (which is of course against international and state law which forbids assassination as a state policy) or are we opposed to it? Is it better for it to remain in James Bond's fictional world or should it encroach into the real world that we, as Bond fans, inhabit?
Either way, I'd love top hear your views as I'm greatly interested in this as a topic of discussion.
Personally, I'm in favour of a controlled level of state assassination such as in the cases of Hitler or more recently Osama bin Laden but that said I of course realise there are inherent dangers if this evil power is abused by a government or intelligence chiefs. I'm against the use of the death penalty, however, as I see that as a separate matter and anyway too many innocents have lost their lives in the past.
I hope that we can all have a civil discussion about this, as I feel it is important. :)
What I want to know is does your being a literary/cinematic James Bond fan make you more in favour of state-sponsored assassination (also referred to as extra-judicial killing) by spies/secret agents/special forces etc. against certain individuals (a recent example in the Navy SEALS assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011). President George W. Bush wanted the CIA agents to have a "licence to kill" in the hunt for Osama bin Laden after the Al-Queada September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the attempt to crash into the White House:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/22/afghanistan.terrorism6
Obviously, Ian Fleming came up with the idea of the "licence to kill in the line of duty" first and no doubt based it on his wartime experiences as Assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence for the duration of World War II and in particular on his 'Red Indians' in the 30 Assault Unit as well as with the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Ian Fleming himself famously suggested several ways that the CIA might assassinate Fidel Castro (including making his beard fall out and giving him explosive cigars).
There were several plots to kill Hitler during World War II and the SOE trained the two assassins who killed Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in the then Czechoslovakia (but which had the terrible consequence of the vengeful Nazis obliterating the Czech town of Lidice and everybody and everything in it).
On the other (anti-Western) side of the coin, during the Cold War the Soviets of course murdered defectors and traitors and we see this happening more recently in the cases of the Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov in September 1978 in London with a pellet containing the toxin ricin fired from an umbrella and Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006 with the radioactive poison Polonium 210, only to be found in Russian scientific labs. SMERSH was of course a Soviet liquidation organ of terror during World War II and it found its equivalents in the NKVD and the KGB (and perhaps even the FSB).
So, are we as Bond fans in favour of state assassination by the UK, the US or their allies (which is of course against international and state law which forbids assassination as a state policy) or are we opposed to it? Is it better for it to remain in James Bond's fictional world or should it encroach into the real world that we, as Bond fans, inhabit?
Either way, I'd love top hear your views as I'm greatly interested in this as a topic of discussion.
Personally, I'm in favour of a controlled level of state assassination such as in the cases of Hitler or more recently Osama bin Laden but that said I of course realise there are inherent dangers if this evil power is abused by a government or intelligence chiefs. I'm against the use of the death penalty, however, as I see that as a separate matter and anyway too many innocents have lost their lives in the past.
I hope that we can all have a civil discussion about this, as I feel it is important. :)
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Agents of enemy sides target and kill, each other for strategic reasons.
Have a problem with it , if it saves lives and government safe guards are
In place.
However we are at war with ISIS, or as well as we can define them.
We have to trust our intelligence services to do what it takes to keep us safe from enemy attacks and also be able to idenitfy such enemies be they individuals, nation-states or hostile organizations.
This may involve pro-active action, as we see in Fleming's OO7 books, as much as Bond detests such work eg TLD.
So with regards to the original post, I am not really pro or con, per se.
But if the threat is real, we need to deal, and not just by playing defence.
But this again is the nature of the shadow war. We the public are not going to hear about what's going on.
Our agencies though are presumably accountable to bureaucratic oversight, within the context of official secrets acts etc. We can't very well have the spy agencies acting as rogue, unaccountable operations either.
Unlike these pricks, who love killing and absolutely revel in it. This is what happens when carrying guns is a human right.
A soldiers job is to engage and kill enemy combatants, which is what those soldiers are doing, in methodical, clinical fashion - taking out enemy combatants armed with AK47's and RPGS.
In world war II allied soldiers were tasked with killing every German soldier they encountered. That's the job.
Whether those soldiers enjoy the work or not, I don't know. The solider profession would attract some bad apples, and also the nature of the work would have the effect of making some guys kinda crazy.
War is a bad deal. No doubt about that.
Soldiers though are required to engage and kill the enemy.
Bond on the other hand is shadow warrior. He has license to kill, but Fleming made it clear Bond was a reluctant killer, almost to a fault sometimes (DN, TMWTGG)
Bond would kill if the job called for it, but he had a distaste for professional assassin cold calculated wet work.
Bond preferred to task mission and kill who needed killing in execution of mission. Mission was first, killing was secondary.
With soldiers though the mission is to identify and kill the enemy. Combat.
They're actually taking out Reuters journalists with long lens cameras. My point being, Bond would never make such a mistake and revel in such ignorance. This wouldn't have come to light without Wikileaks. So while I condone a certain level of state controlled assassination, we have to be vigilant. The video I posted isn't even close to being comparable with a WWII scenario, it's just gung-ho idiots doing the 'World Police thang'.
And no I have no problem seeing someone whom wants me dead die.
:))
A part of me says yes. Why?....because it's increasingly difficult to locate bad guys these days (even with new surveillance techniques and powers). The world is full of bad actors who increasingly want to do harm, so one should be able to assassinate them when they are located.....since if one doesn't they can disappear off the radar and then commit bad deeds. For example, the US knew where Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan pre-911. If they had taken him out then, 911 may not have happened.
A part of me says no. Why?.....because inevitably these powers will be abused...."absolute power corrupts absolutely", and government bureaucracies have a bad record when it comes to intelligence gathering accuracy and abusing power. The risks are high that one could make a mistake, kill the wrong person, ignore collateral damage and harm to innocents, and not do the proper due diligence beforehand.
It's almost become too easy these days, with some soldier sitting thousands of miles away remotely controlling a drone. So as the consequences of error become less, so does the risk of overreach and malfeasance by government operatives.
Where does it end? What kind of assassinations will be approved next? Will be able to kill those who's political views we disagree with?
Power must be kept in check - it must be observed closely, monitored & there must be punishment for abuse. Easier said than done....
I agree that Bond is a special case. He's a special operative. A highly trained individual with a license to kill in the course of his duties to further his mission and objectives. He's good....very good. However, he's a fictional character. His level of perfection is not the norm.....it's not even the exception....it's almost impossible to be as good as he is, and even he makes mistakes.
So while the ability to stop your enemies before they come after you is a commendable one, it should only be allowed with very clear guidelines, control, accountability and oversight by the highest levels of government.
There should be limitations on how long this information should be kept secret as well, in order to ensure accountability to the public and prevent those who may choose to abuse their power from hiding their activities indefinitely.
Mostly agree. The difference between Bond and the real world is that Mi6 never captures, tortures, spies on or executes innocent people in Bonds world. That's why I don't have a problem with the way they treated Mr White in QoS, but don't want such black sites in real life.
Someone said we have to trust our intelligence services. I don't. They've proven themselves unworthy of our trust. James Clapper went before a US Senate committee and flat denied that the NSA was collecting and storing data on innocent Americans. He was lying, and he knew it. Just last week British intelligence fed a nonsense story about Russia and China breaking Edward Snowdens code to access all the data he stole. When examined the story has more holes than swiss cheese. It was based on nothing more than "anonymous government sources" who have every incentive to lie, yet the British press dutifully reported it as fact.
I do not except the notion of moral equivalency. The acts of Soviet Union are no way "as moral" as the war on terror.
That's pretty much it for me.
Regarding Bond, I don't think he considered himself an assassin. Even in OHMSS he didn't consider it was his job role to track down Blofeld.
Sorry, @perdogg. I see what you mean. I agree that there is no moral equivalence there and I certainly did not mean to give that impression. I have accordingly amended that paragraph in the OP on the role of the Russians in this matter that you have quoted in order to better state exactly what I meant - merely looking at what went on in the Soviet Union/the Federation of Russia as "the other side of the coin" (i.e. not as an equivalent example of what we do in the West).
This video btw is actually completely off topic.Its about combat soldiers engaging what they think are enemy insurgents. It has nothing to do with the topic @dragonpol raised.
But thanks for the clarification as to what the video is trying to show.
But as its been put on the table........its not clear from the video that there is any mistaken identity. The soldiers clearly reference AK47s and RPG's. You have to go to the Youtube page and read the blurb copy to learn that two Reuters journalists were among the targets.
My thoughts on this video for what they are worth, and they aren't worth much, because the whole incident does scream for further context, ie what intelligence led the combat unit to believe the targets were insurgents?
Were the journalist traveling with actual insurgents thus putting themselves in harm's way? I don't know? Journalists do stuff like this.
What compelled the soldiers to engage?
It seems the combat unit believed they were engaging insurgents. Even the wikileaks blurb only claims two of the targets to be journalists.
The army private that leaked the video, Bradley Manning is currently doing 35 years on espionage related charges.
But all that aside, if the targets were indeed insurgents, I honestly think this is exactly how you would expect a combat unit to engage ie kill them all.
The comparison with WWII is apt in the sense that an Allied unit in that war, if it were to come across a German patrol that they could get the drop on, would engage and mow them all down.
But I am not blind as to why you posted the video. We don't want to see our troops engaged in such brazen killing activities if there is any doubt as to the veracity of the targets.
War is a bad deal at the best of times
It's why we don't ask our soldier friends or acquaintances, to pull up a chair and tell us about some of their more exciting missions. They don't talk about their war experience. It stays there. It's not pleasant.
The Brad Pitt film released last year, Fury, I thought was a good honest combat film.
The film showed how Pitt's unit which was a WWII mop-up unit, days before the surrender, was methodically rooting out and killing German resistance.
But the film also explored the varied characters and personalities of the soldiers. One guy was clearly a bit psycho. He might have enjoyed killing the enemy for all the wrong reasons. One of his compadres even tells him that in real-life he wouldn't want to know him.
But when the unit was engaged, the nut-bar did his job as effectively as the others. They all aggressively engaged the enemy and supported each other. No questions.
Their squabbles and internal dislikes were confined to their down time.
It didn't matter who enjoyed what or what motivated whom. They all had a job to do and they were co-dependant on each other.
Pitt even whipped the reluctant greenie into a combat killing-machine by movies end, yet the greenie still retained his unique reluctant personality. Pitt simply enlightened him as to the harsh realities of combat.
So the video above shows a combat unit egaging what they think are insurgents and doing I think what you would expect them to do, ie take them out
The broader question of why this group was targeted in the first place is a whole other issue, that higher-ups would have to address or at the very least the ranking officer on the scene. The soldiers were doing their job IMHO.
We do actually have to trust our intelligence services because that's all we've got.
They've got a mandate to protect the realm, so to speak.
You're confusing trust with holding them accountable.
Regarding Bond, movie Bond has no compunction about targeted assassination. Going as far back as FRWL, Bond happily aids Kerim Bay in taking out his Russian nemeis via precision rifle fire.
In LTK Bond has a bead on Sanchez from across the roof-top and is prepared to pull the trigger.
In DAD Bond enters Korea for the express purpose of eliminating Colonel Moon.
In DAF Bond is on the trail of Blofeld, with one goal in mind, to remove him from this mortal coil.
In CR Bond is tasked to eliminate Dryden and does so without compunction.
There are probably other examples.
Fleming's Bond is not so different. He's more nuanced though. Fleming makes it clear that Bond has a distaste for pre-planned assassination, but he'll still do it. He just doesn't like to do it. Fleming brought this human quality to his blunt instrument with the dirty job.
Book-Bond was willing to pull the trigger on Trigger in TLD, but missed on purpose because she was a woman he'd taken a long distance shine to.
Again Fleming brings out Bond's human side. One could argue that Bond should have killed her,because she was a KGB assassin engaged in the act, but Bond is not a robot.
He tried to combine his human emotions with his sense of duty and get best of both worlds.
Admirable I think, yet he allows he could be fired for such dereliction.
Great storytelling by Fleming I think, as this was a potentially real situation, that a highly trained op might have to deal with, and that a practical Chief might also have to creatively deal with.
The movie lets Bond almost completely off the hook, though. Bond purposefully misses because he rightly identifies Kara as a non-professional. I think he could plead that case easier than Book Bond's defense.
It is not like a driver s exam, with a killing instructor present, ready to step in. So is it more like a free trial period?
....just made a statement. Didn't say ISIS. Just a statement. No apologies.
there are some very bad men coming to kill me we plan to kill them first. Sorry paraphrasing a ficticious British character.
:-??
Oh thinking about it, that would make for an interesting story: an CIA or MI6 operative who turns out a psychopath who enjoys his work and goes beyond the call of duty.
Just to point out that I did not assume this - see my OP where I recall the assassinations carried out by the Soviets/Russians, the "other side of the coin" as I called it there.
I meant in general.
Yes, I see your point. The "licence to kill" is indeed a very evil power and if it is to be deployed at all in the real world those charged with its execution (so to speak) must be very carefully vetted to root out potential psychopaths. I suppose you could say that Dexter is one show where this theme is explored.
Who are you quoting here? "just trust them"
The scene with M; are you taking Mommy M to ask? :-O