I’ve have a terrible confession to make. I think I have lost my moral compass in these most interesting of times.
When the news came in of the Trump shooting, my first thought was ‘damn – he missed’.
Can’t the gun lobby do anything constructive?’
I have conducted a very large scientific quantitative research study – by asking my friends and colleagues – and almost all had the same reaction.
But hang on – aren’t we peace-loving hippies at heart? Thou shall not kill and all that?
True, it is that none of us pulled the trigger, or gave the gunman a leg up onto the roof, but given that he was there and doing his thing, almost all wished that the ear shot was just a little to the right (so to speak).
We actually wanted him dead, a man loved by his family, adored by millions of voting Americans, selected by electoral processes more mysterious than our Senate preferences, (but nominated nevertheless), and yet here I am, flirting with disappointment that his brain-matter wasn’t splattered over the faces of those loyal, diverse, and photogenic enough to be positioned behind him.
Shivering and shuddering and evacuating his last on national television while his wife watched on.
Moral dilemma
And so I have conducted a reading frenzy on the morals of justifiable assassination over the last 100 years or so, and some of the philosophers’ musings on the same topic going back way longer.
Even when countries are at war, the rules of the Hague Convention of 1899, declare that it is ‘especially prohibited’ to ‘kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.’
This rule has carried on in various forms, including the Geneva Convention of 1977.
So, if Ukraine were to send an undercover hit squad and kill Putin, that would be a war crime.
It is okay for thousands of civilians and soldiers to be killed, but God forbid a political leader is taken out. But then, those who declare wars rarely fight in them.
Of course, that does not stop some countries just killing those they are sort of at war with anyway.
Murders by state actors
Internationally, political assassinations have become de rigueur, particularly in the Middle East, where Israel has been killing by targeted drone attacks and hit squads for decades.
Oops, did I mention Israel? Sorry.
The US has been joining the ranks with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and Iranian General Soleimani. These are claimed one way or another to be self-defence, but often drift over the line to pure revenge.
Recently, US Senator Lindsey Graham called for Putin to be ‘taken out’, and I once declared to a group of pacifists that I would happily pull the trigger. It was late at night and they were a bit boring.
In England, in recent times, there have been two murders of politicians – Jo Cox (Labour) and David Amess (Conservative), both by political extremists.
In Australia, it is mainly the ALP who has seen the barrel of the gun, with Arthur Calwell shot in the face by Peter Kocan. (Interestingly Calwell wrote and visited Kocan in prison, and forgave him).
And then NSW Labor MP, John Newman, in 1994.
To return to last week, a few have made the justified utilitarian argument – that one death is less harmful than if he is left alive. Trump is undoubtedly a danger to the physical and mental health of many, including young, poor, desperate pregnant women who are suiciding and having dangerous backyard abortions.
If he is elected, well may we say God save Ukraine, because nothing will save those poor people from a Russian massacre. His attitude to climate change will no doubt cause millions of deaths in the long run, as he mines, baby, mines. I cannot see him placing any limitations on Netanyahu. (Sorry, again).
And no doubt, the Mexican border will become another killing field.
And part of my desire for Trump’s death is that it really might be cutting off the head of the snake.
The cult of Trump is so one-man focused, it is hard to see the devotees quickly transferring their loyalty to any of his hapless children or clones on the extreme right. Deplorables are picky.
The classic case is Claus von Stauffenberg’s failed attempt in July 1944 to assassinate Adolf Hitler.
He wanted to shorten the war which he believed was lost.
Stauffenberg was executed for treason, his brother met an even grubbier fate, and 20,000 were killed in Hitler’s purge.
But I reckon his actions were morally justifiable on the grounds that it was likely to have saved squillions of lives.
But, actually, that example is a long way from shooting Trump. So, having deep-dived down the rabbit hole of morality and murder, I have concluded that my reaction was nothing short of shameful and reprehensible.
I should be, and am, disgusted with myself. I will prostrate for my sins. And yet…
♦ David Heilpern is a former magistrate and is now Dean of Law at Southern Cross University.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
