In support of assassination, it can be argued that assassination may preclude a greater evil; it produces fewer casualties than retaliation with conventional weapons; and it can be aimed at the persons directly responsible for terrorist attacks, not innocent bystanders. In addition, the assassination of terrorist leaders would damage and disrupt terrorist groups more than other forms of attack. Finally, assassination leaves no prisoners to be used in further terrorist bargaining. Those opposed to using assassination to combat terrorism argue that it is morally wrong and illegal under American law and international agreements respecting the sovereignity of nations. Assassination also causes those fighting terrorism to act like the terrorists themselves, and it invites retaliation. Terrorists are difficult to find, and they therefore have the advantage in the cat-and-mouse stalking that is necessary for assassination. Additionally, assassination does not guarantee that the successor of the person assassinated will be less violent. Other concerns in carrying out a policy of assassination are the selection of the persons to be killed and the agency charged with giving the order to kill. Then, too, hired assassins have their own agendas and goals -- often in conflict with those who give the orders to kill. Finally, assassination does not work as a long-term policy for eliminating terrorism. 1 footnote.