What a mess

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 3:41 pm

Believe me, were sniper tactics reliable they would have been used. I doubt you could find more than a handful of Americans who wouldn't have preferred things go that way.

The entire regime pretty much perfected hiding behind civilians. 'Collateral damage' is a nasty word used to cover up the fact that innocents had to be killed to get at these two.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 4:16 pm

But doesn't the US have a law (or is it a Presidental Order) against assassinating a state leader?

I really am not sure of this hence I ask.. sorry for nagging about it.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 21, 2003, 4:19 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Forthe, I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

The target was political. The bombing achieved a political aim by targetting noncombatants. That is the definition of a terrorist act, no matter where it was committed.

Once again, an attack against a noncombatant target for the purpose of manipulating a larger political entity in a desired direction is a terrorist act.

Hiroshima

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 4:34 pm

No problem at all, Kelsharra. nice to have a civilized discussion fo a hotbutton topic for once.

Yes, there is a presidential order forbidding the assasination of foreign dignitaries. There are a couple of "out clauses" to it, though.

Here is a decent rundown:

Assassinations (last updated May 15, 2002) (back to top)

Officially, the United States does not conduct or permit assassinations. However, this policy is not codified in law, but in an executive order (EO 123333) that the President can change at will and without public notice of the change. In addition, this policy does not define what an assassination is, and the United States has long distinguished assassinations as separate from military operations directed against enemy leaders in the course of self-defense.

Generally, assassinations are considered by international law experts as the murder of a targeted individual for political purposes, usually involving circumstances of a covert or "treacherous" nature. Whether the intended killing of an individual counts as an assassination or as a generally acceptable military operation depends on whether the relevant countries are at peace or war, the forces carrying out the killing, and the means by which the killing is carried out.

During peacetime, the targeted killing of any individual, whether a combatant or not, is generally considerd an assassination and is not permitted. However, countries at peace are still allowed to use military force under the inherent right of self-defense of nations, which is recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Taking an arguably broad view of its rights under Article 51, the United States has used military force in peacetime situations where a country's actions were considered a direct threat to U.S. citizens or national security. The United States has invoked this right in launching airstrikes against Libya in 1983, invading Panama in 1989, and launching airstrikes against Iraq in 1993, though the United States did not officially target specific individuals in these operations in order to avoid having these actions labeled assassinations that might not be permitted by EO 12333. Some critics say that the United States' view of Article 51 is overbroad, and that it was meant only to allow countries to repel either direct invasions or immediate, overwhelming threats under the Caroline standard established in the 1830s.

During wartime, countries have more freedom to target and attack individuals who are involved in military operations. A combatant is considered a legitimate target at all times, and is denoted as such by his or her uniform, and so a military operation to kill such an individual is considered permissible, unless done through treacherous means. Thus, the successful attack by U.S. military planes on Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during World War II is generally considered an intended attack on an individual, but not an assassination.

U.S. policy towards assassinations has been shaped since the 1970s by an executive order first promulgated in 1977 by President Gerald Ford and re-implemented by presidents since then. Ford's Executive Order 11905 provided, in part, that "no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." That order was expanded by President Jimmy Carter beyond "political" assassination to all assassinations, and is now embodied in EO 12333, which was issued by President Ronald Reagan and maintained by subsequent presidents.

Ford's original order came in the wake of a Senate committee investigation into allegations about United States-authorized assassinations. That committee, which was chaired by Senator Frank Church, concluded that the United States was directly linked to the assassination of Rafael Trugillo of the Dominican Republic and to assassination attempts of Fidel Castro of Cuba., and recommended laws that would prohibit assassinations in peacetime. No such laws were ever enacted, probably pre-empted by Ford's executive action.

EO 12333 is open to much interpretation, perhaps intentionally so. It does not define assassination, which gives the United States some flexibility in its actions and allows it to pursue overt military operations even against specific individuals. It also does not define "engaging" or "conspiring," which arguably leaves room for the United States to encourage coup attempts as long as there are no specific plans for the killing of individuals.

The order also has limited constraint on the President, since he can modify or overrule the executive order at any time and, because it involves security matters, he does not need to notify the public of the change. The president would not have such flexibility to lift the constraint on his power if the ban on assassinations was embodied in a law rather than an executive order.

Effectively, the President has several options if he does wish to order the killing of a foreign leader. He can ask Congress to declare war, he can construe Article 51 to authorize the use of military forces in self-defense, he can narrowly interpret EO 12333 to allow actions as long as specific plans to kill individuals are not involved, and he can modify or overrule EO 12333 unilaterally. His ability to order the killing of a foreign leader visiting the United States, however, might be limited by other factors such as the general policy of not using military forces in the United States, which is given some effect by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

If you are in millitary uniform or in a hostile area and known to be involved with hostile forces, then the term 'assasination' does not apply. People meeting either designation are considered valid millitary targets.

Killing a head of state wearing a Brooks brothers suit during a peacetime visit is definitely out.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 21, 2003, 4:45 pm

Forthe wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:Forthe, I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

The target was political. The bombing achieved a political aim by targetting noncombatants. That is the definition of a terrorist act, no matter where it was committed.

Once again, an attack against a noncombatant target for the purpose of manipulating a larger political entity in a desired direction is a terrorist act.
Hiroshima

We were at a state of formal war! And how dare you forget Nagasaki

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 4:49 pm

Hiroshima

Yep.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 5:48 pm

Good read, thank you. I guess it basicly comes down to if the President want it bad enough he can get around doing it since it seems so open for interpretation.

Hussein's sons and Hussein himself were directly involved with running the military, so I guess that made them "legal" targets, although I am sure an argument could be made that at the time they were cut off and had no direct involvement.

Question though: How would the American President fit in? He is technically the leader of the armed forces, but he does not wear an uniform. Would he be classified as a "legal target" or not?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 5:54 pm

In time of war, he would be a legal target.

Of course, anyone shooting at him is unlikely to be worried about properly applying an executive order, so....

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 21, 2003, 6:34 pm

Yeah I agree, just used him as an example to make things clearer for myself. Thanks again, I will gladly admit I learned something