JesCid (jescid) wrote,

Как убивать

Разминаюсь как-то вечером на прошлой неделе, слушаю радио BBC-4 в полуха. И тут чуть буквально на голову не упала, как только до моего сознания дошло, что там говорят — The bastard has to deserve it. The victim must be a dire threat to your existence, in effect giving you license to murder him — c 23 минуты: «Подонок должен это заслуживать. Жертва обязана быть жуткой угрозой твоему сущетвованию, по сути дающей тебе лицензию на её убийство».

В трансляции шёл анонс только что вышедшей книги бывшего агента ЦРУ Роберта Бэра и интервью с ним. Первые страницы — «Совершенное умерщвление: 21 правило для убийцы» («The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins»).
Анонс книжки тоже мил:
Что определяет убийство? Босс Роберта Бэра в ЦРУ как-то сказал ему: «Это пуля с именем персоны на ней».
Иногда убийство является бессмысленным психическим актом, кровопролитием без социальной ценности. В других случаях это может быть самый здравомыслящий и самый гуманный способ изменить ход конфликта: одна пуля, одна смерть, дело закрыто.

Убийства были театрализованны литературой и политизированы печально знаменитыми умерщвлениями на протяжении истории, а для Роберта Бэра, одного из самых удачных агентов, когда-либо работавших на ЦРУ, — это источник бесконечной привлекательности. В течение нескольких десятилетий Бэр служил оперативником от Ирака до Индии, в других местах. В совершенном умерщвлении», он ведёт нас по повествованию от диких занимательных приключений через историю политических убийств, из первых рук делясь свои ​​опытом, переплетённым с многолетней охотой на знаменитейших убийц современной эпохи.

Истинный индивидуалист с увлекательной личной историей, Бэр приоткрывает занавес, чтобы дать представление о закулисном мире мировой политике, и о тихих убийцах, которые работают на грани нашего общества.
— прекрасно, да? К the quiet murderers тут же и The Quiet American («Тихий Амерканец» Грэма Грина) вспомнился… К слову, «один из самых удачных агентов, когда-либо работавших на ЦРУ» по собственному признанию ни одного заданного ему громкого политического убийства так и не совершил. Может, потому и книжку написал… Хотя скорее — та «пуля с именем» у тех убийств, что были успешны, не подлежит раскрытию.

Сначала зачитывают цитаты из книги:
LAW #1 THE BASTARD HAS TO DESERVE IT. The victim must be a dire threat to your existence, in effect giving you license to murder him. The act can never be about revenge, personal grievance, ownership, or status.

LAW #9 DON'T SHOOT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM. Exercise violence with vigilant precision and care. Grievances are incarnated in a man rather than in a tribe, nation or civilization. Blindly and stupidly lashing out is the quickest way to forfeit power.

LAW #15 DON'T MISS. It's better not to try than to try and miss. A failed attempt gives the victim an aura of invincibility, augmenting his power while diminishing yours, like in any business reputation is everything.

LAW #17 HE, WHO LAUGHS LAST, SHOOT FIRST. You're the enemy within, which means there's never a moment they're not trying to hunt you down to exterminate you. Hit before it's too late.
Потом идёт интервью:
— What defines the assassination from any other murder?

— You can justify assassination if it preserves force and avoids war. Let's take a perfect example… it would be a killing Hitler in 44. It would save lives and a lot of distructions, but, you know, arriving in those conditions… and the ability to do it is nearly impossible.

— It's extraordinary subjective even with the situation and circumstances which you've described, but… So what's your personal experience, how close did you come to be envolved in a plot, in an assassination plot?

— I had it in CIA base in Iraq in 1994-95 and under authority of the Unated States government I made an attempt of Saddam Hussein. Our idea was — get rid of Saddam, his two sons and then live Iraq alone — this would have avoided an invasion… we didn't intend the mess with the political system.

— How did you get given such a task? Who asks you such a task? How did you get asked? How did you get involved?

— The president of US issues what's called it a lethal finding and use any force necessary… licence to kill if you'd like. The CIA doesn't like to admit that but there is such a thing. And you were supposed to refer back to the president when you are ready to pull the trigger, it's called a memorandum and a notification. But in the lead up to attempt of Saddam we never gave that memorandum and that notification and that caused burocratic problems, legal problems. Essentially everybody was accord, I meen the Britains were quite aware of this order too, they didn't participate in it but they agreed… em… the foreign office and MI6 that he had to go.

— From your experience then — would you say that assassination is… is a good or bad thing… it, clearly, you think so as of the purpose… but would you come down then in favor that it is a necessary evil?

— I would come down against it because the circumstances and following the laws which I described… rules are almost impossible… it's…, look, killing Ben Laden… he was assassinated… but any definition…

— But some might say the death of Ben Laden has taken away a figure had served an important political purpose…?

— We… we've got Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — he is in a sense more dangerous, much more dangerous… Ben Laden was locked up in the Pakistanian essencially safe house, he wasn't really communicating… I mean… if somebody like that — you grab him and put him on trial — and you see the insanity of his arguments… and that would be more teeling than his… than his murdering… He wasn't much for murder! who's… who's really called for revenge? he wasn't even really a figurehead. What we can't forget is the attacks of 9/11 through what the americans called pick-up team. And it was all homo actors who wrecked us… and he dyied in it… and an entire is a paradigm put up to me, the paradigm of the defence of not letting aeroplanes go… — happens the same day, the flight 93… so… you know, going through this drawn campaign… I don't see it… to many civilians have been killed… we've created more enemies and more enemies we've killed… I think we really have to take these calculations… that is a time, as Q(?) said, when tirano sign is justified killing… it wouldn't be justified, not, nobody disagrees with that… but those circumstances are so rare… that an assassination is… just generaly is not advisable.

Если у кого есть время загнать в Google Translate, отредактировать и дать комментарием перевод на русский — спасибо. Сказанное Бэром стоит внимания. Если мною что-то не так расслышалось — тоже спасибо за поправки. Курсив мой.
Tags: capital, politinformation, praeteritum

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.