(no subject)

[andrewducker]

So far 4 different people have said something along the lines of Can anyone tell me what's wrong with assasination?

The answer being that outside of fictional ninjas and The Bourne Identity, assassination's not as easy as you might think. Especially of paranoid stateleaders with their own army and esecurity personnell, when the local language isn't English and they don't look anything like you. It's a lovely idea (if you want to start a bad precedent), but it's just not something that's terribly feasible.

Today, the CIA thought they had a good idea where Saddam was for short while. So they hit it with eight Cruise missiles. They still probably didn't get him. Because real life isn't like the movies.

Comments

[shannon_a]

It's also illegal for the executive department of the United States to use the tactic, according to a prior presidential decree (though Bush has already violated that decree in his CIA-sponsored hits on alledged terrorists).

Legality of assasination

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Rebecca is a US defence lawyer, and freely admits she doesn't know everything. However, here's her posting from Our Ultimate Home:

"We all know that the U.S. has a policy of not assassinating foreign leaders, but I wonder if this is a good policy. I mean, if we were able to do it, wouldn't it have been better to have just gone in months ago (or years ago) and assassinated SH, rather than having an all out war where innocent Iraqis (and I think Americans) will certainly be killed?

I'm calling it a policy, because I don't actually know that it is illegal to do so for reasons that I stated in another thread, but will re-post here, recognizing that this is simply my meager legal analysis, and I'm not an international lawyer:

I don't actually think that it *is* illegal for the U.S. to assassinate the leader of another country. To my knowledge, the "law" outlawing it is nothing more than an Executive Order, which any first year law student knows is not an actual law. Basically, an Executive Order is the president just saying "I'm not going to do this," or "I'm going to do this," and then making it public. It's not voted on by Congress and then submitted to the president for veto, so it's not technically a law. Under the constitution, only Congress can make laws, not the president. For the president to make a law is an infringement on the separation of powers, which is why a president cannot do so. An Executive Order is really only ceremonious - if the president doesn't follow it, it can't be enforced in court.

The only way I see it being illegal is if we have also signed a treaty saying that we agree not to assassinate leaders. However, we violate treaties that we have signed all the time."

So, it would seem assasination isn't illegal, merely (and obviously) a non-likeable option.

However, despite what Andy says about real life vs the movies, I think an assasination attempt is a viable alternative to all out war. Surely, while assasination in itself is contemptable, and should obviously be a rare and last resort, it would be better to attempt to kill the man, as opposed to his innocent, conscripted countrymen and women? We haven't even tried to send in the SAS. We've simply said "We'll bomb shit out of you Saddam, till you get fed up." To which Saddam probably thinks "Cool. I'll get a video feed of the bombings/front lines sent to my impenetrable bunker, and watch it while having sex and snorting coke." (Exaggeration) This guy gets off on the pain, suffering, murder and mutilation of people. The US/UK attack on Iraq only meets his needs, both on a personal and political level. We're playing his game. And we can't win.

Re: Legality of assasination

[shannon_a]

Rebecca is right that it's just an executive order.

As to the legality of that, it's hard to say. There's been a growing trend for a hundred years or so of presidents slowly taking powers from congress. I'm unaware of any decision ever being made by the US Supreme Court on what all this means.

But, she could well be right on it not actually being illegal.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

It's a lovely idea (if you want to start a bad precedent), but it's just not something that's terribly feasible.

I agree that it generally doesn't work. There was a truly lovely assassination of a deeply horrible (moreso than most) South African president in the 1950s, but sadly most of the really vile people live to a ripe old age).

However, I don't see assassination as a bad precedent at all, it seems an excellent alternative to warfare. If you are the leader of a nation, then it doesn't not seem unreasonable that your life should be more at risk than the lives of lots of armed young people - I only wish it worked often enough to be a viable alternative. It's also a great way to keep international relations at a reasonable and non-aggressive level, since now war usually means soldiers die and the leaders are fine. If international aggression meant that leaders died, there would be a whole lot less international aggression.

Also on a purely personal level, I have great trouble seeing being a soldier as an honorable, interesting, or in any way positive profession, but I happen to find the idea of political assassins quite cool - I don't approve of killing, but if you are going to do it, you should do it both with style and in a way that actually makes a difference. Killing clueless 19 year olds with guns either neither stylish nor does it make any difference unless done en mass. If nothing else, a couple of bullets in the late 1930s could have prevented a lot of the horrors of WWII.

[broin.livejournal.com]

But real life is like computer games. I've played Deus Ex. Crowbar to the back of the head would kill him, then you'd just have to carry the body to the nearest cliff/fence, and dump it.

Easy.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Suicide bomb attacks seem to have a reasonable success rate?

[andrewducker]

against unexpectant civillians.

You do not get to meet Saddam Hussein without taking a shower in front of one of his trusted people. You are strip-searched. He is paranoid and very, very careful. He has body doubles. He has a large personal guard.

The only way you are getting near him is if you bring your own army with.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Against Indian, Sri Lankan etc, prime minister types it seems to work.

I was (of course) meaning the kind of leaders that DO go out in public, not our pal Mr Hussein.

[andrewducker]

Aah, right. Yes, I can certainly see it working in that kind of situation.

I'm certainly not advocating it though.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Everyone has their own views about what's right and wrong. Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as a clear threat to some people's way of life, after all.