There are many thousands of books on particular assassinations and on the subject in general, but nearly all of them deal with the victims, not the perpetrators.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
People are just fascinated by assassinations.
In my opinion, assassination theories will continue to revolve around these assassinations as they have around several other significant assassinations in American history. The assassination of President Lincoln comes to mind.
Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an 'assassination.'
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.
When I started writing the third book, 'The Kill,' the intention was just to write a thriller, a crime novel for myself, really, in which there would be no body, no solution - where you would look at an event from different people's perspectives.
I especially object to having my character assassinated by reference to events from my past which bear absolutely no relationship to the question of who the anthrax killer is.
I'm not sure whay I've been drawn to this subject, except that murder is a subject that has always drawn people for as long as people have been telling stories.
Writing a novel is actually searching for victims. As I write I keep looking for casualties. The stories uncover the casualties.
I'm trying to finish my book on the Kennedy assassination.
Let me be clear. 'The Good Father' isn't a handbook on how to assassinate the president.
No opposing quotes found.