One of Many Interesting Political Philosophy Questions Raised by Tom Cruise

After watching the new movie about the plot to kill Hitler, Valkyrie, Bryan Caplan asks: why are people so squeamish about tyrannicide?

I'm amazed that people who don't think twice about killing conscripts (or even civilians) are so reluctant to justify violence against serial killer statesmen. What could be less objectionable than trying to stop mass murder by killing the specific individuals most responsible for it?

If the philosophical case for tyrannicide is so strong, why do so many people - including the members of the 1944 plot against Hitler - have such strong moral qualms against it? My best guess is that (a) there is a high correlation between moral virtue and obedience to authority, and (b) political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide because they're worried about retaliation and/or setting a precedent. But I wonder if that's a little too conspiratorial.

Comments

[SJE]

Most of the discussion about why its so bad to kill tyrants seems infused with the "divine right of kings." (i.e. The king gets his position because it is the will of god, and so killing the king is a specific act against gods will.)

[EJM]

On a semi-related note, a recent Inner City Press item featured this bit of analytical contrast...

Now, humanitarians are saying that far too little forethought was given to what would happen if Joseph Kony was not killed in the assault, what the LRA would do. As the issue of extrajudicial killing is being raised about Israel's bombing of the houses of Hamas leaders in Gaza, the UN through envoy Joaquim Chissano, and its Security Council through a Presidential Statement, have embraced a military strategy that itself smacked of extrajudicial killing of the indicted war criminal Joseph Kony.

[Elemenope]

political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide because they're worried about retaliation and/or setting a precedent

This is the only reason I've ever really seen seriously advanced, and it makes sense to me.

[Pro Libertate]

It's about fear of retaliation and the resulting chaos. If everyone offed each others leaders, things might get a bit messy in the world. On the other hand, warfare makes things messy, too.

[BakedPenguin]

...there is a high correlation between moral virtue and obedience to authority...

Right. Because the phrase "we were only following orders!" just smacks of morality...

[Andrew]

It's because you cannot kill Hitler. I mean, think of the consequences!

[Erm]

Did SJE come here in a time machine? What kind of people is he talking to? How can we exploit them?

Pro Libertate and LMNOP seem to have it figured out. Not that complicated, really.

[Reinmoose]

Furthermore, you would think that there are a lot of aggressive, risk-taking, frustrated guys in law enforcement would desperately want to correct a few of "the system's mistakes"

Is the justice system that we frequently credit with unjust imprisonments of drug offenders or suspected drug offenders or wrong-door raids maybe a good indicator of sanctioned vigilanteeism?

[creech]

But von Stauffenberg wasn't acting on a plot that involved Roosevelt or any other allied leader. The question is "why don't the oppressed victims of the leader kill him?"
At some point when it is obvious the leader is a vicious killer, he (or she?) is probably very well protected and one probably would forfeit one's own life in an unsucessful attempt. This hope - to survive the leader's depredations - probably accounts for the vast lack of such assassinations. But maybe those diagnosed with a terminal illness should step up and do the deed, rather than hoping some guy with a potential fifty years to live
decides his moral conscience dictates a try.

[Bee]

Has anyone seen the film? I was thinking of going this weekend. I saw a publicity photo somewhere of the Tom Cruise character's profile next to the Nazi officer's profile, and the resemblance was astounding.

Is Caplan so sure that people who don't wish to kill a tyrant WILL willingly kill others? I'd guess that many people think killing is wrong, period.

As a cranky libertarian, I naturally also take issue with the assertion that moral virtue correlates with obedience to a patently murderous authority.

[Kolohe]

There's also the practical side of this. Killing the sovereign who's not on the front line with his troops has not been possible until the development of over the horizon weaponry in the inter-Word war years - except through the use of spies or traitors. So there has not been much time to develop 'a law of war' for such targeting*. And spies and traitors have always operated outside the 'law of war'.

What made the late 20th century precedent of *not* taking out foreign leaders (at least of powerful countries) was that, in the cold war paradigm**, it still would be entirely be carried out by spies and traitors. And so there was a multi-layered MAD that applied. The first layer, already mentioned, was that you didn't want to get into a proxy war of assassination and reprisal. And second layer was the real risk that such a cycle could escalate into total thermonuclear war.

*although the early precedents were that this was no problem, as when Yamamoto's plane was deliberately shot down (not technically a head of state, but pretty far up in the food chain)

**as well as the state of technology for most of its duration.

[Uday, Qusay and Saddam]

A lack of due process?

[Voltaire]

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

[swillfredo pareto]

This hope - to survive the leader's depredations - probably accounts for the vast lack of such assassinations.

Another particularly nasty attribute of the tyrant is his and his acolyte's willingness to bring great suffering to the friends and family of a would-be assassin. Erwin Rommel apparently had that threat hanging over his head and he was not even directly involved in the plot.

[John C. Randolph]

Who's squeamish about killing Hitler?

The reason people are staying away from Tom Cruise movies is because they don't want any of their money funding that totalitarian nut-cult he belongs to. If this same movie had starred anybody else, it would be doing rather better at the box office.

-jcr

[Episiarch]

At some point when it is obvious the leader is a vicious killer, he (or she?) is probably very well protected and one probably would forfeit one's own life in an unsucessful attempt.

Bingo. Leaders, especially tyrannical ones, are often very well protected and virtually impossible to get to. And the smart ones fill their guards with fiercely loyal people instead of Sejanus-types.

Also, if you try for a kill and fail, but don't die, you are gonna hate what remains of your life as you get tortured. Scary stuff that would deter most people.

You're not just killing a person; you're killing a powerful person.

[Mister DNA]

I'd much rather see the 1941 Fritz Lang film, Man Hunt.

[John C. Randolph]

Let me just mention, that killing a couple of those depraved Roman emperors was probably the best thing that the Praetorian Guard ever did.

-jcr

[The Angry Optimist]

I always assumed that tyrannicide makes people uncomfortable because of the old Stalin trope about one death v. one million deaths. Field casualties are remote, but killing one man while he sleeps seems cold-blooded.

It is still a messed-up way to look at the world.

[Travis]

Has anyone seen the film?

It's not a great film, but it's worth watching once.

[Name and Address Withheld]

My Great-Great Uncle was Erich von Ludendorff, Paul von Hindenburg Chief of Staff and the man directly responsible for 20,000,000 deaths in WWI. Had I been alive then, I'd have killed him myself. And then I'd have made a tasty lunch.

[Episiarch]

Let me just mention, that killing a couple of those depraved Roman emperors was probably the best thing that the Praetorian Guard ever did.

Check out how many they killed or deserted. Why the fuck would any Emperor keep them around? Vespasian was smart for reducing them after Vitellius.

I tell you, the Romans had no problem with tyrannicide, that's for sure.

[Voltaire]

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination."

[The Angry Optimist]

I was always struck by the pronvincialism and love of authority Alighieri exhibited in The Divine Comedy by putting Brutus in Satan's fucking mouth. Brutus is one of my heroes.

[Episiarch]

Sic semper tyrannis, TAO?

[Crusader Rabbit]

I tell you, the Romans had no problem with tyrannicide, that's for sure.

And neither did most other cultures through most of history. Think of all the Russian Czars and dictators (including Lenin and, maybe, Stalin), not to mention English kings and African and Middle Eastern whatevers, who were directly or indirectly offed by the next guy who wanted to be in charge.

The problem is, when you do it you have to be prepared to take over; and not that many people have that much blind ambition.

[John C. Randolph]

A question just occurred to me. How many kings would Cromwell have had to kill to atone for his massacre of the Irish?

-jcr

[huh?]

And neither did most other cultures through most of history. Think of all the Russian Czars and dictators (including Lenin and, maybe, Stalin), not to mention English kings and African and Middle Eastern whatevers, who were directly or indirectly offed by the next guy who wanted to be in charge.

Like LBJ's offing of JFK?

Sic semper tyrannis

Sic semper Hyannis

[Pro Libertate]

Wasn't there a TV movie made in the last 15 years or so about this plot? I remember seeing it, but I can't remember the name.

[The Angry Optimist]

Sic semper tyrannis

Indeed. Or, more American: "Some folks need killin'"/

[Nigel Watt]

I always assumed that tyrannicide makes people uncomfortable because of the old Stalin trope about one death v. one million deaths. Field casualties are remote, but killing one man while he sleeps seems cold-blooded awesome.

Assuming said man is Stalin.

[Fluffy]

I agree with those who are making the point that retaliation is one problem.

I would say that a related, but distinct, problem is the type of political atmosphere widespread use of assassination as a tool produces. In that kind of environment paranoia, conspiracy-mongering, and betrayal rule the day, and this makes it even harder to clean up the domestic and international political messes that the presence of tyrants creates. Think Italy during the middle and late Renaissance or the chaotic periods in Islam's history.

[Episiarch]

Sic semper Hyannis

Awesome. I'm stealing this.

[Crusader Rabbit]

A good friend of mine is the great grandson of one of the conspirators with von Stauffenberg, whom he (and many others) consider to be one of the few real German heros. He's deeply offended that Tom Cruise & company are making this story into Mission Impossible IV.

[Urkobold?]

Sic semper evello mortem Uranus, OR, FOR THOSE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS, Sic semper Uranus.

[dhex]

"Sic semper Uranus."

sounds like a good name for a mid-brow porno series.

[thoreau]

Even if you kill the dictator and you either avoid being killed or don't mind dying for a good cause, who says that killing the dictator will fix things? His ruthless second-in-command could take over. Or the leader of the guerrilla resistance army might turn out to be just as cruel (or worse?).

Or the country might dissolve into chaos with warring factions vying for control until ethnic cleansing resolves some of the territorial disputes and restores the illusion of peace.

Come to think of it, that last scenario actually happened quite recently in some country, oh, what country was it?

Even if a regime collapses with minimal bloodshed (e.g. the Soviets) the result might be gangsterism until a strongman restores order (not too different from what happened in Russia until Putin consolidated power and the illusion of order).

Anyway, killing the dictator might not fix a damn thing.

[Jeff P]

Do not take Tyrannicide of you are taking nitrates for chest pain...

[Pro Libertate]

How about we just capture tyrants then exile them to the Moon? To a base, I mean. It would be fun to see people like Mugabe and Castro working together to set up a water still. In fact, we should have webcams everywhere, making it a tyrant reality show, too. Which would fund the kidnapping, Earth-Moon transportation, and the Moon base.

[Pro Libertate]

Call your doctor if your revolution lasts for more than four hours.

[Brandybuck]

There were plenty of people who would have gladly committed tyrannicide in Nazi Germany. Just not the people in power. Duh.

[Eric the .5b]

Anyway, killing the dictator might not fix a damn thing.

Indeed. You should definitely just invade and occupy.

[Er?k Gabhran Boston, Esq.]

I wonder how to apply Godwin's Law to this thread.

[The Angry Optimist]

Did you know HITLER killed political leaders??! HUH!??? Do you want to be just like HITLER???!

[Pro Libertate]

Er?k,

TAO is right. You need some sort of reference to Nazis that isn't tied to the main point of the thread.

[thoreau]

Eric-

Oh, if an outside party wants to get involved, I'd say that killing the dictator is less worse than invading and occupying. But if the question is why more dictators aren't killed from within, I think the concerns about the aftermath are valid.

Most dictators managed to "make the trains run on time" at some point early in their rule. Or at least they made the trains run less tardy than the people they replaced. This is part of the reason why they have their loyalists, and part of the reason why even some of their opponents might think twice about coups, assassinations, etc.

So, for a would-be assassin, the likely outcomes are:

1) You fail at the assassination, you're captured and tortured to death, and your family is also tortured to death.
2) You succeed at the assassination, but you die of wounds sustained during the attempt. Your country is either plunged into chaos or the evil #2 guy simply takes over. (The evil #2 guy might also kill your family, to deter anybody else thinking of assassination.)
3) You succeed at the assassination, you survive, and after your country is either plunged into chaos or left to the not-so-tender mercies of the evil #2 guy, you and your family flee.
4) You succeed at the assassination, you die, but at least your country gets better.
5) You succeeed at the country, survive, and see your country improve.

The last 2 scenarios are rather unlikely, the final one is particularly unlikely, and all of the other more likely scenarios are pretty awful.

[Pro Libertate]

thoreau,

Which is why the best approach is to have everyone else be involved in the conspiracy in the first place. Some call it. . .a revolution.

[Eric the .5b]

Oh, if an outside party wants to get involved, I'd say that killing the dictator is less worse than invading and occupying. But if the question is why more dictators aren't killed from within, I think the concerns about the aftermath are valid.

I believe the topic is the former.

[Libertymike]

Pro Lib-

Some might even call it seccession.

[thoreau]

Eric-

Since the catalyst for this thread was a movie about an internal plot against Hitler, I assumed the topic was home-grown plots against dictators, not external plots.

[Libertymike]

After Manassas, with the Disgrace of Columbia available for the taking, why did the greycoats pass up tyrannicide? It would have prevented the great dictator from mass murdering hundres of thousands. Then agian, some of the same tyrants discussed in this thread would have been deprived of the example they so admired.

[Elemenope]

After Manassas, with the Disgrace of Columbia available for the taking, why did the greycoats pass up tyrannicide? It would have prevented the great dictator from mass murdering hundres of thousands. Then agian, some of the same tyrants discussed in this thread would have been deprived of the example they so admired.

You know, there is a designated day for this Lincoln-hate, and it's called his birthday. We even have it off from work/school, so you can do it all day.

[Pro Libertate]

Secession is acceptable. "Seig hi, Mr. Hitler, sir. Um, the rest of Germany just seceded from, um, you. Have a Nazi day!"

[Libertymike]

Given that Robert Mugabe's birthday is February 21st, I can have twofer that week!

[Libertymike]

Correction: I can have a twofer that week.

[Libertymike]

If Bavaria had decided to secede from the Third Reich, after whom do you think Hitler would have modeled his response? Harry Chapin?

[MNG]

Back from my trip. And now that Boston College has blown it and there is time before the LSU game thought I'd check on H&R. I also saw Valkyrie a few days ago, so this is an interesting topic.

I liked Valkyrie, but one thing I did not like was how Cruise played his character without any conflict on whether he should do what would seem to us to be plainly necessary and right but what must have seemed to a German officer to be at least technically treason and given the values of said officer corps that would be a very, very hard thing to do. This quote by him illuminates quite a bit about how he played that role.

But here is my take on this: would be assassins of their own nation's dictators probably have so many qualms because they are such decent people and most decent people have trouble killing anyone, even if that person is a bad person (this explains why someone like TAO would not be bothered). You see, all the less than decent folks probably buy into the dictator, the leaders count on those types. But it takes a decent person to see that his own leaders and nation are horribly in the wrong and that something must be done about it. And such people have qualms about killing, they have trouble thinking that ends justify means.

[MNG]

"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

I think this is how most decent folks think about killing, period.

I should add of course that somone from another faction that wants power would have no qualms about killing a leader (or anyone else probably), and history kind of demonstrates that.

As to Dante and Brutus: of course Dante is a tool (and Brutus is a favorite of mine too). But regicide was looked down upon by monarchs because of the example it set, they wanted an aura of "don't fuck with me, I'm God's chosen" around all that rule. If you want to see how tricky this was look at Shakepeare's Ricky II...

[The Angry Optimist]

this explains why someone like TAO would not be bothered)

Because I am not a decent person? Happy New Year, MNG.

[Paul]

If I were President, I'd never sign anything or any treaty promising not to assasinate other world leaders.

It's like being reflexively 'antiwar'. Usually, no matter what your politics are, you can find something, someone, or some nation so horrible, such an anathema to everything you believe, that you're willing to make an exception. Better not to say 'never'.

[MNg]

I think your rather certain views about right and wrong and unconcerned attitude towards the killing of others to be indicative of a person who is not decent. Yes.

[MNG]

If Brutus said "Horrible, horrible, but it had to be done" then he was a decent guy.

If he said "Holy shit that was great, what a fantastic turn of events that I stabbed that bastard and he's dead now" then I don't think of that as decent.

[MNG]

I've always thought Dante's work is pretty stupid (I actually think this about a lot of classics sadly). It's so obvious the guy was trying to please his patrons, appease the powerful that were not his patrons, and to settle amazingly petty personal scores.

It's amazing how silly many classics are. Reading Aristotle is like eating dry hay. Plato has many laughable ideas (his stuff on reincarnation, man-boy love, education as "remembering, his "noble lie" and psuedo-racist stuff). Aquinas is laughable in his apologetics. Etc.

Hume, Shakespeare, J.S. Mill...other than that an amazing number of classics strike me as hogwash...

[Travis]

"Even if you kill the dictator and you either avoid being killed or don't mind dying for a good cause, who says that killing the dictator will fix things? His ruthless second-in-command could take over."

That's a good point. When Czar Alexander II was assasinated his son Alexander III came to power & repealed a lot of the freedoms his father had enacted.

[David E. Gallaher]

I'll tie it in to the "invisible hand."
Animals have an urge to climb the pecking order. That means number 53 is more than happy to eliminate 52.
It ties in to the invisible hand because none of us can think beyond number 52. We just feel compelled to do what is right in front of us... not many numbers beyond.
By the time we address number 2 doing in number 1, number 1 has already taken extraordinary precautions against precisely that eventuality.

But, for sure, as a Southerner, I am definitely of the opinion, "some people just need killin'"

Ruthless

[MNG]

"But, for sure, as a Southerner, I am definitely of the opinion, "some people just need killin'""

Yeah, that goes far to explaining one of the South's favorite institutions:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

[David E. Gallaher]

MNG,
Southerners are also especially sensitive to rudeness, and you are.

Could I get an "Amen"?

[MaterailMonkee]

Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,
Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,
Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,
Drink,Drink,Drink,

Well its is New Year's

May auld acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind!

Happy New Year's

[MNG]

Southerners are sensitive to rudeness because they used to kill each other over it (duels).

They needed no such excuse to kill dark skinned people, of course.

[Warty]

MNG is not very nice.

[Right Wing Realist]

Because assassination means political chaos, and chaos means people get raped and killed.

[Aresen]

One point that has not been raised in the tyranicide debate is the fact that tyrants - particularly modern tyrants - have huge propaganda machines which make them into demigods to the majority of their people. Speer in his memoir mentioned telephone operators crying at the first (inaccurate) reports of Hitler's death. There were hysterical outbreaks in Moscow when Stalin died.

It takes a very determined person to go against the prevailing view and carry out an assassination in that environment, especially if one is a fundamentally moral person to begin with.

With respect to Marcus Junius Brutus, the reports of his motivation come from Suetonius and others who were very much opposed to the Ceasars - in other words, biased sources. The so-called "Republican" faction in Rome were not interested in liberty - they were interested in their own personal power. They were a bunch of aristocratic kleptocrats, using the Roman State for their own enrichment. Brutus seems to have been a rather suppliant individual, so he probably would not have held power. Most likely, Cassius Longinus or one of the more ruthless members of the Optimates faction would have wound up with a Sulla-like dictatorship, complete with the proscriptions.

[cuernimus]

Tyrants don't get offed because the people who would want to kill them, don't have access to them. These Nazis wanted to kill Hitler because of a war going poorly and the repercussions of losing, not because of any humanitarian reasons. It benefited them more to kill him than to let him live, so he needed to die. If they controlled all of Europe and were pissing on Stalin's grave, Hitler would of been a national hero.

[nobody u no and a big fan of j]

the persons chattering on this thread sound like they think this was the first or only attempt on hitler's life.

lots of people using nazi instead of german or soldier.

mng continues the myth that lynching and dueling happened only in the south.

does nobody bother looking up facts any more? perhaps making up ones own facts is the new way of the world.

[MNG]

"mng continues the myth that lynching and dueling happened only in the south.
does nobody bother looking up facts any more?"

Did I say that?

Dueling pretty much died out in the North way before it did in the South (read historian Edward Ayer's stuff on this). And I posted the numbers on lynchings which show 1. yes it occurred in the North but 2. not nearly as much as in the South. That is one of your beloved facts.

Hey, there is a lot to like about the South, both now and historically. But there is a lot of nasty peculiarities too. Given that the South was out of step in a considerable moral way for so long, and given that they are politically and socially very different from most of the nation today, one would think it would behoove Southerners to take a long, deep look inward...

[ed]

political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide because they're worried about retaliation

Gee, ya' think? Entire towns were wiped off the map when Hitler's henchmen were attacked. Simply thinking about bumping off Stalin would get you and every living relative shipped to a frozen slave-labor camp. If it were easy it would certainly happen more frequently.

[Jason White]

LOoks like a good movie but I refuse to fund anyone who is part of that Scientology CULT!

Jess
http://www.privacy.de.tc

[Plato]

I hear--I heard what you were saying. You--you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.

[MNG]

Major props for the Annie Hall quote!

Plato was nuts though, check out Karl Popper's discussion in The Open Society and it's Enemies.

[jtuf]

(b) political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide because they're worried about retaliation and/or setting a precedent. But I wonder if that's a little too conspiratorial.

Consider it a professional courtesy.

[Pro Libertate]

And I thought no one would remember that one.

I agree that any philosopher has flaws, but don't be too quick to discard their thinking entirely. Plato, for instance, has some interesting insights, and Aristotle still pops up in current, nonhistorical scholarship today.

What's sad about Aristotle is that we have none of his published works--just his lecture notes. His reputation also was damaged by the revolt against Scholasticism, but it was less him and more people interpreting him that was the problem. Not that he wasn't wrong about plenty, especially in the natural sciences.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Valkyrie in real life was not about striking a blow against tyranny, per se; as usual, it's a bit more complicated...
The men behind the Valkyrie plot were not exactly gallant Paul Henreid types; mostly they were old-line Prussian aristocrats who hated Hitler because he upset the old-boy network.
They were hardly adverse to the notion of Germany uber alles; they just didn't like Hitler and his newfangled ways.
And yes, I understand that none of this is relevant to the question of when and whether tyrannicide is justified; just wanna set the record straight, folks...

[Victor Laszlo]

Yes, I am dashing, aren't I? Let's all sing "La Marseillaise". . .one more time!

[MNG]

Pro L
I love Woody Allen films. Little trivia-I read somewhere that Allen wanted Fellini to be the person who pops up in that scene, but he was for some reason unavailable and had to "settle" for MaCluhan.

"What's sad about Aristotle is that we have none of his published works--just his lecture notes."

I've heard that's why they read so dryly. I do think its amazing that someone could construct the works we have from lecture notes...

And I agree with you that there is a lot of good thought in Plato and Aristotle, I just think it's side by side with some silly stuff. And they both should be read to understand the huge influence they had. I just think we've had many later thinkers that were better.

[Lefiti]

Is there any moral virtue in obedience to unaccountable plutocrats?

[Buffy]

"I've always thought Dante's work is pretty stupid (I actually think this about a lot of classics sadly). It's so obvious the guy was trying to please his patrons, appease the powerful that were not his patrons, and to settle amazingly petty personal scores.

It's amazing how silly many classics are. Reading Aristotle is like eating dry hay. Plato has many laughable ideas (his stuff on reincarnation, man-boy love, education as "remembering, his "noble lie" and psuedo-racist stuff). Aquinas is laughable in his apologetics. Etc.

Hume, Shakespeare, J.S. Mill...other than that an amazing number of classics strike me as hogwash..."

Wow! You're so cool!

[Partick Fitzgerald]

"Plato has many laughable ideas...man-boy love..."

Closet much?

[Lefiti]

Jesus, Buffy, you really are a halfwit.

[Lefiti]

Sorry, Buffy. I guess you were quoting a halfwit.

[scholastic]

On tyrannicide, read Juan de Mariana....

Most of the State's mysticism since the time of the Pahraohs and before has centered on discouraging king-slaying. Of course primitive tribes had much fewer qualms... germanic elective kingship, etc...

It takes an unusually clear mind to cut through the bullshit. de Mariana deserves a lot of praise for that, and for having the courage to say it out loud.

[robc]

How many kings would Cromwell have had to kill to atone for his massacre of the Irish?

One.

[SJE]

No, Erm, I didnt come in a time machine. This is an issue that people have actually been talking about for several hundred years before reason blogged about it.

[jack]

Maybe becoming a murderer to fight a murderer is a philisophical problem? Derrr.

[B]

"After Manassas, with the Disgrace of Columbia available for the taking, why did the greycoats pass up tyrannicide? It would have prevented the great dictator from mass murdering hundres of thousands. Then agian, some of the same tyrants discussed in this thread would have been deprived of the example they so admired.'

There is no surer sign of idiocy than a love of the Confederate States of America. What is even worse is that you are seemingly comparing Lincoln unfavorably, as you call him the great dictator, to a group of people who thought it was ok to buy and sell human beings. If that does not represent the pinnacle of tyranny, I sure as hell do not know what does. Thank the lord Lincoln was there to order the slaughter of those backwoods yokels.

[russell]

Yes I saw the film rated 4.5 of 5,
I'm surprised that there aren't more films
like this about this witches caldron called
Nazi Germany, There were other's that tried
to kill Hitler but he was a Genius in ways,
he built the SS to protect himself and had
extreme security, also any attempt wether
failed or sucess would put your love ones on
meat hooks. As one German you must step
on the head of the serpent to step on the tail
will assure you will be bitten.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.