Mediaboss Marketing

Libertarians have been among the most vocal critics of President Trump's decision to order the killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani. But there was actually a time when there were prominent libertarians who advocated assassination as an alternative to war.

It's worth noting that the libertarian objections to the Soleimani killing fall into two broad categories. One has to do with the question of whether Trump had the legal authority to order the attack without Congress. But the other is the substantive criticism of whether it's a good idea to take out a prominent foreign leader.

In the past, however, there has been a strand of libertarian thought that actually saw targeted killings of America's enemies as a way to eliminate threats without the need for major military engagements that killed civilians. To be clear, this doesn't mean it was a universally accepted position among libertarians (as if such a thing exists), but it was a prominent one.

Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000, explicitly argued that the United States should offer a bounty on the heads of our enemies. In Why Government Doesn't Work, the manifesto for his 1996 campaign, he made the case against the first Iraq War for its toll on innocent victims. "Assume Saddam Hussein really was a threat," he posited. "Is that a reason to kill innocent people and expose thousands of Americans to danger? Isnt there a better way for a President to deal with a potential enemy?"

As an alternative, he argued that the president could publicly deliver a message to Hussein, explaining the U.S. meant no harm to the Iraqi people and proposing $20 million be given as a reward to the person who assassinates him. "Everyone in the world is eligible for the reward: American citizens, citizens of other countries, Iraqi citizens, members of your Palace Guard, your cabinet even your wives."

Browne went on to explain: "There are brave, daring, ingenious, ambitious people in the world who would love to try for such a reward. At least one of them would probably be successful. But, what is more important, the potential for such success should dissuade anyone from threatening us."

He wrote: "Would the President be condoning cold-blooded killing? Yes but of just one guilty person, rather than of the thousands of innocents who die in bombing raids."

In the wake of Sept. 11 and as a presidential candidate, Ron Paul advocated that the U.S. enlist the help of private individuals to capture terrorists by issuing "letters of marque and reprisal." He proposed a bill that would have allowed "Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the [United States].

But he later criticized the raid that killed bin Laden, arguing that the U.S. should have worked with Pakistan.

There are specific circumstances surrounding the Soleimani killing that may make it particularly objectionable to libertarians. But the idea of targeting bad actors as an alternative to large-scale bombing raids is not incompatible with noninterventionist foreign policy sentiments.

View post:
Prominent libertarians once advocated assassination as an alternative to war - Washington Examiner