It's time to get rid of the word "assassinate" and replace it with "murder".

The dictionary, at least the one I have at hand (Webster's 9th Collegiate), defines "assassinate" as "to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons" or (2nd definition) "to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously."

Which definition would you apply to the "asssinations" of (1) Abraham Lincoln, (2) John Kennedy, (3) Ghandi, (4) Rasputin, (5) John Lennon?

Think now. Look back at the definitions and then look at the names. The clock is ticking.

Okay, time's up.

All those people were killed by someone who either opposed them politically or were jealous of their fame and popularity.

Were they "assassinated" or merely "murdered"?

For those of us who grew up in the twentieth century, "assassination" meant killing someone for a political belief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed because he wanted to bring Afro-Americans into the mainstream of American culture, among other things he stood for. The same could be said of Bobby Kennedy and his big brother, John. They were killed because they were intent on shaking up the status quo, trying to change things politically. So it could be said that they were assassinated: killed for a politcal cause.

But the fact remains that they were all murdered. In the same dictionary, let's look up the definition of "murder": "the crime of killing unlawfully a person, esp. with malice aforethought" or "to kill a human being unlawfully and with premeditated malice."

Those who killed John and Robert and Martin planned it out and then did it, meaning that their crimes were "premeditated". That's murder. Did they have strong political beliefs that made them do it? Maybe. But history has proven that their beliefs were mistaken. They killed for
wrong-headed, even stupid reasons. John and Robert and Martin were right. Their killers were wrong.

Let's look back on our other cases: Lincoln, Ghandi, Rasputin and Lennon.

John Lennon wasn't "assassinated", as he wasn't an office-holder. The disturbed man who shot him wasn't doing it for any political cause. He was a deranged fan, probably jealous of John.

Rasputin was murdered because he'd gained the trust of the Tsarina, but he wasn't about to take over the throne. Someone was jealous of his growing power, and a group of them murdered him.

Ghandi was getting way too popular among the masses of people, so someone high up decided that he needed to be done away with: in other words, murdered.

You might like to think that Lincoln was assassinated, but really he was just murdered. The guy who did it made his way to Lincoln's box in the theatre and shot him with a handgun -- what we might now call a "Saturday night special", the kind any thug or pimp might own. To tell the truth, there was nothing extraordinary about the way Lincoln died: the victim of a handgun owned by someone who shouldn't have owned one. And the guy who shot him was an actor, not a long-time activist who could claim any credentials. Someone looking for his "fifteen minutes" of fame, according to Andy Warhol (who was, himself, once shot by a deranged fan).

Back to John Kennedy: He was murdered by someone up high in that building in Dallas. Who cares what the shooter's political leanings were? Or about all the conspiracy theories that have sprung up since then? The guy who shot him, Oswald, was a troubled "loner" who wanted his own "fifteen minutes". In short, just another murderer, but a murderer of a popular President.

Years later, a "troubled" boy from Colorado (where I live) shot at Reagan -- and left his aide with a permanent brain injury. What was his motivation? Was he trying to rid his country of a despot? No way! He wanted to become famous, or infamous, as the boy who shot Reagan. But he failed, and Reagan went on to be a hero (at least among Republicans) for having survived the attack. (I've heard that the boy, now a man, wants to be let out, at least for family visits, but I think certain crimes require lifetime confinement: endless time to think about what you did.)

None of them was a true assassin. At least according to me.

Here's the only definition of assassin that I accept: Killing a despot, a tyrant, someone who is making life miserable for all his/her subjects. And, at the same time, being willing to die yourself for having done it. There are certainly evil rulers in the world, as there have always been, and they do need to be killed, as it's the only way to get rid of them and their violent/distorted view of the world. Stalin. Idi Amin. Etc. Those who plotted against Hitler -- and nearly killed him but not quite -- qualify as assassins, as they were risking everything to get an evil person out of power and out of his life and theirs. (They paid dearly for not pulling it off, and you don't want to know the details of how it turned out for them. Trust me, you don't.)

But that criterion doesn't apply to anyone in this essay. None of those people, including Rasputin (who I researched at length before I wrote a play about him), were evil incarnate. Hitler was. So was Stalin. And Pol Pot. The aforementioned Idi Amim. They tortured and killed millions of people. Anyone who wanted to kill them could credibly be called an assassin. But you know what? None succeeded. Not one of those assassins managed to carry out their plots. They were all caught and severely punished.

Is there a place, today, for an assassin? Are there leaders of countries who should be killed as the only way to spare those countries from decades of decay and corruption? Of course there are! Would I recommend it?

Not unless you are in that country yourself and are willing to risk death to oppose that leader.

I suspect that thins the crop, as they say. If I were in a country like that, knowing that the military, supported by the government, monitored everything I said or sent out, even by email,
I would be very careful about what I said. But I would remember and write it all down, on paper or by whatever means I had at hand. I would keep a record, even if I had to hide it. And I would try to get it out to others in countries more free than mine.

Would the world pay attention? Maybe, maybe not. Probably after the fact, when it's too late.

As long as there are people in the world who have total control over what their citizens can say, there is always room for assassins. But let's not call them that if they don't deserve it. Whoever killed

Let's get rid of that word or only grant it to heroic people who put their own lives on the line to spare their fellow citizens indignities, including unlawful arrests, torture, and executions, which they will suffer themselves if discovered. In short, you're not a real assassin if you don't put everything you have on the line for what you believe. And only then if history proves you were right. Otherwise, you're just a murderer.

So calling someone an assassin is to dignify the murder he or she might have done out of self-interest or insanity. Anyone who kills another human -- unless in self-defense or to free his/her people from a tyrant--is a murderer. Whoever killed Benazir Bhutto wasn't an assassin but a murderer. She was apparently trying to do what was right for her people, who loved her, and was killed for it. And her murderer wasn't willing to take credit, to stand up and say, "I did it, and here's why." No, it was, as is often the case, someone who did it anonymously and slipped away. Maybe he was caught later -- I don't know -- but if he wasn't willing to put his own life on the line for what he believed by admitting that he'd done it, he's not a true assassin but just another murderer.

John Wilkes Booth ran away after he shot Lincoln and was found in a barn, where he was shot to death. Neither he nor any of the other culprits in this essay stood up in a court of law to say, "I did it because I believed in the cause." They were all hunted down and caught, or not.

So let's abolish this term "assassin" except in extraordinary circumstances, when some brave person puts his/her life on the line to usher a horrible ruler into the afterlife, with whatever consequences, if any, may ensue.

Patrick Henry didn't assassinate anyone but did say, "I know not what course others may take, but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

He said it in public, before an assemblage of his countrymen, and he was hanged for it.

Any good, patriotic assassin will stand up and claim responsibility for his or her actions.

The rest are all murderers, and let's call them that.