U.S. denies any role in killing of Iran scientist
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday denied any U.S. role in the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, after Iran blamed U.S. or Israeli agents for the killing.
"The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. "We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like what is being reported today."
(Reporting By Matt Spetalnick)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
kafantaris wrote:
A third scientist is killed and again the United States along with Israel are deemed to be the ones that killed him — to slow Iran from building an atomic bomb.
Not even Russia had gone that far during the cold war. Neither had we — until now.
Yet our presidential candidates advocate that we “take out” more Iranian scientists, “all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
Surprisingly, few people raised an eyebrow to this newly articulated expediency in international affairs.
Is no one concerned that the victims might have wives and children; mothers and fathers; sisters and brothers? Or that these scientists had committed no crime or terrorist act to justify us killing them?
To be sure, expediency has no moral code. Its only rule is to reach an end, by any means. Those who regularly resort to expediency must therefore regularly also compromise their moral compass — the very guide they will need to find their way out of the next storm. When that storm comes they are left morally bankrupt and at loss as to what to do.
Still, they see no risk in being in this position. That’s fine.
We, however, are a God fearing nation, conceived out of a universal sense for fairness.
There is nothing fair or right about killing another nation’s scientists.
Not even Russia had gone that far during the cold war. Neither had we — until now.
Yet our presidential candidates advocate that we “take out” more Iranian scientists, “all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
Surprisingly, few people raised an eyebrow to this newly articulated expediency in international affairs.
Is no one concerned that the victims might have wives and children; mothers and fathers; sisters and brothers? Or that these scientists had committed no crime or terrorist act to justify us killing them?
To be sure, expediency has no moral code. Its only rule is to reach an end, by any means. Those who regularly resort to expediency must therefore regularly also compromise their moral compass — the very guide they will need to find their way out of the next storm. When that storm comes they are left morally bankrupt and at loss as to what to do.
Still, they see no risk in being in this position. That’s fine.
We, however, are a God fearing nation, conceived out of a universal sense for fairness.
There is nothing fair or right about killing another nation’s scientists.
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
Follow Reuters