There’s some interesting history here.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@jbond/116158465674939723
There’s some interesting history here. The idea that you don’t kill leaders was pretty entrenched in Europe for the last few hundred years. Mostly, it was a gentleman’s agreement among monarchs to keep themselves safe. You might capture a king or queen, but you’d ransom them back to their nation rather than killing them. The French Revolution killed their king and this, more than anything else they did, made them pariahs on the international stage. No one cared that they killed large numbers of their own people (everyone did that, ask the Irish), but none of the other monarchs wanted the idea that you can just kill them to catch on.
After Napoleon called himself Emperor, he got the same protection. He wasn’t killed at the end of the war, he was exiled (and then again, further away, when the first time didn’t work). The leaders of the time thought killing him would set a precedent that they were uncomfortable with. There are even reports that he came within gun range during Waterloo but Wellington ordered the allies not to shoot him.
I’ve never been particularly happy with this convention because it exists to split the world cleanly into people who are responsible for wars and people who might die in wars.
I do find it particularly interesting that it’s the President who wants to be a King who is willing to upend this convention. Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated (though he has been very willing to have other people assassinated on foreign soil) [EDIT: This is incorrect, see Ilias’ correction below. He has just not succeeded]. He must have a lot of confidence in the Secret Service.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@jbond/116158465674939723
There’s some interesting history here. The idea that you don’t kill leaders was pretty entrenched in Europe for the last few hundred years. Mostly, it was a gentleman’s agreement among monarchs to keep themselves safe. You might capture a king or queen, but you’d ransom them back to their nation rather than killing them. The French Revolution killed their king and this, more than anything else they did, made them pariahs on the international stage. No one cared that they killed large numbers of their own people (everyone did that, ask the Irish), but none of the other monarchs wanted the idea that you can just kill them to catch on.
After Napoleon called himself Emperor, he got the same protection. He wasn’t killed at the end of the war, he was exiled (and then again, further away, when the first time didn’t work). The leaders of the time thought killing him would set a precedent that they were uncomfortable with. There are even reports that he came within gun range during Waterloo but Wellington ordered the allies not to shoot him.
I’ve never been particularly happy with this convention because it exists to split the world cleanly into people who are responsible for wars and people who might die in wars.
I do find it particularly interesting that it’s the President who wants to be a King who is willing to upend this convention. Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated (though he has been very willing to have other people assassinated on foreign soil) [EDIT: This is incorrect, see Ilias’ correction below. He has just not succeeded]. He must have a lot of confidence in the Secret Service.
> Mostly, it was a gentleman’s agreement among monarchs to keep themselves safe.
Exactly this real-politique. If this became commonplace, they might do it to you. The same reason as not assassinating the negotiation team. Oh. Wait.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@jbond/116158465674939723
There’s some interesting history here. The idea that you don’t kill leaders was pretty entrenched in Europe for the last few hundred years. Mostly, it was a gentleman’s agreement among monarchs to keep themselves safe. You might capture a king or queen, but you’d ransom them back to their nation rather than killing them. The French Revolution killed their king and this, more than anything else they did, made them pariahs on the international stage. No one cared that they killed large numbers of their own people (everyone did that, ask the Irish), but none of the other monarchs wanted the idea that you can just kill them to catch on.
After Napoleon called himself Emperor, he got the same protection. He wasn’t killed at the end of the war, he was exiled (and then again, further away, when the first time didn’t work). The leaders of the time thought killing him would set a precedent that they were uncomfortable with. There are even reports that he came within gun range during Waterloo but Wellington ordered the allies not to shoot him.
I’ve never been particularly happy with this convention because it exists to split the world cleanly into people who are responsible for wars and people who might die in wars.
I do find it particularly interesting that it’s the President who wants to be a King who is willing to upend this convention. Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated (though he has been very willing to have other people assassinated on foreign soil) [EDIT: This is incorrect, see Ilias’ correction below. He has just not succeeded]. He must have a lot of confidence in the Secret Service.
@david_chisnall this is a very interesting observation. I also somehow implicitly accepted that going for the head of state is out of the question. This kind of precedent might actually be a good thing. (Autocratic) leaders having to actually fear for their life as consequences of their actions is definitely something I like seeing.
-
@david_chisnall this is a very interesting observation. I also somehow implicitly accepted that going for the head of state is out of the question. This kind of precedent might actually be a good thing. (Autocratic) leaders having to actually fear for their life as consequences of their actions is definitely something I like seeing.
My worry is that it makes less-autocratic leaders more fearful of foreign powers with good assassination teams than of their own constituents.
-
My worry is that it makes less-autocratic leaders more fearful of foreign powers with good assassination teams than of their own constituents.
@david_chisnall yes. It forces improvements in personal security and as such incentivizes international cooperation (think europol). Still beats those who have the most control on the course of the world being shielded from the fallout of their actions imo
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@jbond/116158465674939723
There’s some interesting history here. The idea that you don’t kill leaders was pretty entrenched in Europe for the last few hundred years. Mostly, it was a gentleman’s agreement among monarchs to keep themselves safe. You might capture a king or queen, but you’d ransom them back to their nation rather than killing them. The French Revolution killed their king and this, more than anything else they did, made them pariahs on the international stage. No one cared that they killed large numbers of their own people (everyone did that, ask the Irish), but none of the other monarchs wanted the idea that you can just kill them to catch on.
After Napoleon called himself Emperor, he got the same protection. He wasn’t killed at the end of the war, he was exiled (and then again, further away, when the first time didn’t work). The leaders of the time thought killing him would set a precedent that they were uncomfortable with. There are even reports that he came within gun range during Waterloo but Wellington ordered the allies not to shoot him.
I’ve never been particularly happy with this convention because it exists to split the world cleanly into people who are responsible for wars and people who might die in wars.
I do find it particularly interesting that it’s the President who wants to be a King who is willing to upend this convention. Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated (though he has been very willing to have other people assassinated on foreign soil) [EDIT: This is incorrect, see Ilias’ correction below. He has just not succeeded]. He must have a lot of confidence in the Secret Service.
@david_chisnall The other reason is it doesn't actually achieve anything. There's always a new leader waiting in the wings, by inheritance, appointment, voting or just having more guns.
The idea that if you kill the leader the system automatically collapses is nonsense.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@jbond/116158465674939723
There’s some interesting history here. The idea that you don’t kill leaders was pretty entrenched in Europe for the last few hundred years. Mostly, it was a gentleman’s agreement among monarchs to keep themselves safe. You might capture a king or queen, but you’d ransom them back to their nation rather than killing them. The French Revolution killed their king and this, more than anything else they did, made them pariahs on the international stage. No one cared that they killed large numbers of their own people (everyone did that, ask the Irish), but none of the other monarchs wanted the idea that you can just kill them to catch on.
After Napoleon called himself Emperor, he got the same protection. He wasn’t killed at the end of the war, he was exiled (and then again, further away, when the first time didn’t work). The leaders of the time thought killing him would set a precedent that they were uncomfortable with. There are even reports that he came within gun range during Waterloo but Wellington ordered the allies not to shoot him.
I’ve never been particularly happy with this convention because it exists to split the world cleanly into people who are responsible for wars and people who might die in wars.
I do find it particularly interesting that it’s the President who wants to be a King who is willing to upend this convention. Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated (though he has been very willing to have other people assassinated on foreign soil) [EDIT: This is incorrect, see Ilias’ correction below. He has just not succeeded]. He must have a lot of confidence in the Secret Service.
@david_chisnall "Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated" - he didn't shy away at all. only difference is that it was unsuccessful https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68968256
also, back in 2004 Viktor Yuschenko was poisoned with dioxin (although back then he was presidential candidate but still applies)
-
@david_chisnall "Even Putin has shied away from having foreign leaders assassinated" - he didn't shy away at all. only difference is that it was unsuccessful https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68968256
also, back in 2004 Viktor Yuschenko was poisoned with dioxin (although back then he was presidential candidate but still applies)
Thanks, I looked for a list of people Putin had had assassinated, I didn’t think to look for a list of failed attempts.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
