Rhino
03-09-2001, 04:47 AM
The Sonarman
Forum Host
posts: 287
(2/16/01 9:44:16 pm)
| Del All
Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations
WASHINGTON — A bill that would restore the president’s authority to order the assassination of foreign leaders is winding its way through Congress even as it raises eyebrows outside Washington.
Supporters say such a measure is necessary to counter the growing terrorist threat against the United States. Detractors call it nothing more than state-sponsored murder written into law.
House Resolution 19, introduced by Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., would erase three existing presidential orders that limit the president’s ability to pick off pesky foreign leaders.
The main restriction dates to the mid-1970s, when Gerald Ford banned the practice by signing Executive Order 11905. He did so after congressional hearings uncovered several CIA-sponsored assassination plots against foreign leaders. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan broadened the ban to include anyone working for the U.S. government.
No other country has such formal restrictions on killing by government agents. Barr said the policy unnecessarily ties the president's hands.
"The president of the United States, whichever president it is, Republican or Democrat, ought always to have available to him the whole range of options," he said.
If the ban were lifted, the U.S. government theoretically could knock off such enemies as Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who survived a crushing military defeat but is still a threat in the Middle East, and Fidel Castro of Cuba.
But Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., said the U.S. government should announce its intentions and prove it is acting in self-defense before taking someone's life.
"When you kill someone without a legitimate basis and without avowing it...that is a murder," he said.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives Jan. 3 and is now being considered by the House International Relations committee. Like all other legislation before Congress, it faces an uphill battle and must pass the full House, Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
The text of the bill asserts that the government uses force, often unsuccessfully, to bomb countries in an attempt to kill terrorists. The new resolution would allow for other "limited action" to accomplish the same purpose.
Still, Sofaer said the killing of terrorists makes no sense.
"On balance, it hurts the interests of the United States rather than help the interests of the United States," he said.
Barr insists it would be another weapon in the fight against terrorism, but refused to speculate on who in the world should be targeted for assassination.
"Oh, good heavens, I'd leave that entirely up to the President," he said. "He's the one that's armed with the information on what these foreign leaders are doing."
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
AtomicLibSmasher
ezOP/TaskMaster
posts: 1093
(2/16/01 10:04:23 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't Willie posta be moving to Limeyville soon???
``I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal" - Slick Clinton
WarLady1
Owner/ezOP/Moderator
posts: 1817
(2/17/01 12:52:29 am)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm for it. What a stupid liberal idea to protect murdering tyrants. I'm so sick of their squeamish lemming sheeple notions I could puke.
**Don't forget to check out our other great forums!!
Jeff Davis
Gold Star Member
posts: 107
(2/17/01 12:19:50 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Ford that originlly wrote the EO. Repealing it is a good thing. I have always wondered why it is alright to kill the 18 year old draftee, who would rather be home herding his goats, but not the @$$^*!& who is running the country.
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 99
(2/17/01 12:44:12 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advantages of writing it back into law are far outweighed by the disadvantages.
Yea, we could knock off Saddam.
But, it would cost the US too much in foreign relations with our allies and friends. We now have the largest most powerful military in the world. Other nations perceive this situation as an uncomfortable disequilibrium. They expect us now to use our power to our own advantage. As far as other nations are concerned, the only current restraint on the US moving toward complete hegemony is our own self-restraint - which for them is not to be relied on.
If, in highly public fashion, the US were to formally announce a new legal rule, unilaterally imposed, that it can once again point its cannon directly at any foreign leader within its sole discretion, the US would be playing directly to the fears of other nations, not only those of our enemies, but those of our allies as well.
We can address the Saddams, the Ghedaffis, the Milosovices of the world more subtly, without such public posturing which would work to our disadvantage.
Achilles.
wolfplus3
Forum Host/Bookworm
posts: 83
(2/17/01 12:57:03 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achilles,
If you mean the largest military by means of the most A-bombs, ok. If you mean the largest force, look at the PRC. Quite a few of those rascals there.
I disagree with you on the notion that we can deal with the Saddams et. al. subtly. Hasn't worked on Castro yet has it? Besides, all the other nations look at us as the international meal ticket. Denounce the US for their wealth and prosperity while they are suffering, and presto, instant foreign aid.
Maybe if these tinpot dictators realized a "cannon" was amied at them for real, they might walk a little tighter line. If not, well, that's what the move was intended for anyway, no?
This is not a very passionate subject for me, but I feel, ooops! I "think" we should not tie one arm behind our backs when it comes to options we can exercise. I know we do these things anyway, but if we take away the PR hammer it gives 3rd world countries, it's a good thing.
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 100
(2/17/01 1:20:10 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wolfplus3:
If we act unilaterally (i.e. without consensus) to aim our assassination cannon at Saddam, or Castro, or whomever, because it happens to suit our short-term interests, we cannot forget that we are telling every single foreign leader that in the longer-run, "we can aim our cannon at you, too."
This would constitute very blunt change in US posture, indeed. It would be likely to alienate our allies, induce greater defensive measures around the world, and accelerate the weapons build-up among our adversaries and within the third world.
I am arguing that these will be the consequences of unilateral action - as distinct form the moral view we take of other nations and their political systems. The consequences of unilateral action would work to our disadvantage in the long-run.
Achilles.
Jeff Davis
Gold Star Member
posts: 111
(2/17/01 1:29:28 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achilles,
Why is it right to kill the 18 year old draftee but not the leader of the country?
JD
The Sonarman
Forum Host
posts: 313
(2/17/01 1:36:00 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to ask if having "Allies" benefits or hurts the US. IMHO, it appears "the other guys" get all the benefits.
The US is hated and envied throughout the world, to a greater or lesser degree by most if not all foreign countries. I don't need other country's "love" and respect. I'll trade that to have them fear us, and fearing to attack us.
I'm ex-military, as are others in this site. I'd prefer the US have the known threat that we do not automatically rule out assassination as a political tool. As far as I know, we are the only country to expressly forbid it right now. I'd rather have POTUS have the authority (ie. knwon threat) to occassionally order their top guy(s) wacked out, rather than (only option) to have our military have to kill thousands of their military (young men on both sides). Why not put the "old guys" on notice that they are at risk, rather than kill 100,000+ of their troops, who's only sin is they've been told they're protecting the homeland, too. We did things this way during Desert Storm. Wouldn't a more elegant option have been to put a 50 million USD bounty on Saddam? Let HIM duck and run, afraid of his own guys.
Just a thought....
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
Edited by: The Sonarman at: 2/17/01 1:43:31 pm
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 101
(2/17/01 1:55:12 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Davis:
If the leader of a foreign nation dies as the result of a legitimate military strike by the US (Reagan was nearly successful with Gheddafi in 1986), there can be no objection. Had Bush been able to locate and eliminate Saddam during Desert Storm, this would have worked to the benefit of everyone involved in the campaign. Fact is, we couldn't get to him without a massive invasion of Iraq's urban centers, and we agreed with our allies we wouldn't do this, although we certainly could have unilaterally.
But assassination of foreign leaders, contemplated within the proposed change in the law, is a different matter entirely. The law would state unilaterally and unequivocally to all foreign leaders, and to all of the people over whom each of them exercises sovereignty, that the US alone has the right to take out that leader within its sole discretion. Here lies the problem.
It is not a moral issue. In international affairs, one looks only at cause and effect, not at moral issues. The US does not intend to be hegemonous, but chooses instead to work with other nation-states (Other nations, if armed like us, would probably choose hegemony).
The new change in US law which openly and unilaterally permits assassinations of foreign leaders would work substantially to our detriment with other nations.
Achilles.
Jeff Davis
Gold Star Member
posts: 114
(2/17/01 2:09:12 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But assassination is a legitimate military function. I would argue that the US needs to take several major steps back from world involvement, Pre-Wilson days would be nice. Let us trade with any who wish to trade with us. Read Washington's Farewell Address for the foreign policy America needs to adopt.
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 103
(2/17/01 2:22:58 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Davis:
I think it's a nice idea in theory. But the world is much different now when compared with Wilson's time. Two giant things are happening simultaneously.
1. Unfortunately, the technology for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems is proliferating at a dangerous rate throughout the world. Ever growing threat of total destruction.
2. Fortunately, however, the world is moving toward democratically-elected governments everywhere. Democracies are generally non-hegemonous, giving rise to the prospect of eventual universal peace.
Can 2 outrun 1?
The US needs to stay heavily involved internationally to help 2 outrun 1!!
A return to isolationism, combined with developing a missile shield, constitutes a bad case of myopia.
Achilles.
RKfalken
Gold Star Member
posts: 167
(2/17/01 7:20:39 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm for it. What a stupid liberal idea to protect murdering tyrants. I'm so sick of their squeamish lemming sheeple notions I could puke."
Yeah! what a dumb idea to make sure that the CIA couldn't take out anybody that we don't like.
I say that making sure that we don't go around killing leaders helps our reputation and keeps most conspiracy fanatics at bay.
Also.. a exploding cigar to Havana does sound good.
AtomicLibSmasher
ezOP/TaskMaster
posts: 1155
(2/17/01 7:29:03 pm)
| Del
someone say "cigar"?
http://warlady1.com/pics/slickcigar.gif
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal" - Slick Clinton
RKfalken
Gold Star Member
posts: 169
(2/17/01 7:30:19 pm)
| Del
Re: someone say "cigar"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Libby, can you make one of those for Castro?
Forum Host
posts: 287
(2/16/01 9:44:16 pm)
| Del All
Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations
WASHINGTON — A bill that would restore the president’s authority to order the assassination of foreign leaders is winding its way through Congress even as it raises eyebrows outside Washington.
Supporters say such a measure is necessary to counter the growing terrorist threat against the United States. Detractors call it nothing more than state-sponsored murder written into law.
House Resolution 19, introduced by Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., would erase three existing presidential orders that limit the president’s ability to pick off pesky foreign leaders.
The main restriction dates to the mid-1970s, when Gerald Ford banned the practice by signing Executive Order 11905. He did so after congressional hearings uncovered several CIA-sponsored assassination plots against foreign leaders. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan broadened the ban to include anyone working for the U.S. government.
No other country has such formal restrictions on killing by government agents. Barr said the policy unnecessarily ties the president's hands.
"The president of the United States, whichever president it is, Republican or Democrat, ought always to have available to him the whole range of options," he said.
If the ban were lifted, the U.S. government theoretically could knock off such enemies as Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who survived a crushing military defeat but is still a threat in the Middle East, and Fidel Castro of Cuba.
But Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., said the U.S. government should announce its intentions and prove it is acting in self-defense before taking someone's life.
"When you kill someone without a legitimate basis and without avowing it...that is a murder," he said.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives Jan. 3 and is now being considered by the House International Relations committee. Like all other legislation before Congress, it faces an uphill battle and must pass the full House, Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
The text of the bill asserts that the government uses force, often unsuccessfully, to bomb countries in an attempt to kill terrorists. The new resolution would allow for other "limited action" to accomplish the same purpose.
Still, Sofaer said the killing of terrorists makes no sense.
"On balance, it hurts the interests of the United States rather than help the interests of the United States," he said.
Barr insists it would be another weapon in the fight against terrorism, but refused to speculate on who in the world should be targeted for assassination.
"Oh, good heavens, I'd leave that entirely up to the President," he said. "He's the one that's armed with the information on what these foreign leaders are doing."
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
AtomicLibSmasher
ezOP/TaskMaster
posts: 1093
(2/16/01 10:04:23 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't Willie posta be moving to Limeyville soon???
``I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal" - Slick Clinton
WarLady1
Owner/ezOP/Moderator
posts: 1817
(2/17/01 12:52:29 am)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm for it. What a stupid liberal idea to protect murdering tyrants. I'm so sick of their squeamish lemming sheeple notions I could puke.
**Don't forget to check out our other great forums!!
Jeff Davis
Gold Star Member
posts: 107
(2/17/01 12:19:50 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Ford that originlly wrote the EO. Repealing it is a good thing. I have always wondered why it is alright to kill the 18 year old draftee, who would rather be home herding his goats, but not the @$$^*!& who is running the country.
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 99
(2/17/01 12:44:12 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advantages of writing it back into law are far outweighed by the disadvantages.
Yea, we could knock off Saddam.
But, it would cost the US too much in foreign relations with our allies and friends. We now have the largest most powerful military in the world. Other nations perceive this situation as an uncomfortable disequilibrium. They expect us now to use our power to our own advantage. As far as other nations are concerned, the only current restraint on the US moving toward complete hegemony is our own self-restraint - which for them is not to be relied on.
If, in highly public fashion, the US were to formally announce a new legal rule, unilaterally imposed, that it can once again point its cannon directly at any foreign leader within its sole discretion, the US would be playing directly to the fears of other nations, not only those of our enemies, but those of our allies as well.
We can address the Saddams, the Ghedaffis, the Milosovices of the world more subtly, without such public posturing which would work to our disadvantage.
Achilles.
wolfplus3
Forum Host/Bookworm
posts: 83
(2/17/01 12:57:03 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achilles,
If you mean the largest military by means of the most A-bombs, ok. If you mean the largest force, look at the PRC. Quite a few of those rascals there.
I disagree with you on the notion that we can deal with the Saddams et. al. subtly. Hasn't worked on Castro yet has it? Besides, all the other nations look at us as the international meal ticket. Denounce the US for their wealth and prosperity while they are suffering, and presto, instant foreign aid.
Maybe if these tinpot dictators realized a "cannon" was amied at them for real, they might walk a little tighter line. If not, well, that's what the move was intended for anyway, no?
This is not a very passionate subject for me, but I feel, ooops! I "think" we should not tie one arm behind our backs when it comes to options we can exercise. I know we do these things anyway, but if we take away the PR hammer it gives 3rd world countries, it's a good thing.
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 100
(2/17/01 1:20:10 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wolfplus3:
If we act unilaterally (i.e. without consensus) to aim our assassination cannon at Saddam, or Castro, or whomever, because it happens to suit our short-term interests, we cannot forget that we are telling every single foreign leader that in the longer-run, "we can aim our cannon at you, too."
This would constitute very blunt change in US posture, indeed. It would be likely to alienate our allies, induce greater defensive measures around the world, and accelerate the weapons build-up among our adversaries and within the third world.
I am arguing that these will be the consequences of unilateral action - as distinct form the moral view we take of other nations and their political systems. The consequences of unilateral action would work to our disadvantage in the long-run.
Achilles.
Jeff Davis
Gold Star Member
posts: 111
(2/17/01 1:29:28 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achilles,
Why is it right to kill the 18 year old draftee but not the leader of the country?
JD
The Sonarman
Forum Host
posts: 313
(2/17/01 1:36:00 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to ask if having "Allies" benefits or hurts the US. IMHO, it appears "the other guys" get all the benefits.
The US is hated and envied throughout the world, to a greater or lesser degree by most if not all foreign countries. I don't need other country's "love" and respect. I'll trade that to have them fear us, and fearing to attack us.
I'm ex-military, as are others in this site. I'd prefer the US have the known threat that we do not automatically rule out assassination as a political tool. As far as I know, we are the only country to expressly forbid it right now. I'd rather have POTUS have the authority (ie. knwon threat) to occassionally order their top guy(s) wacked out, rather than (only option) to have our military have to kill thousands of their military (young men on both sides). Why not put the "old guys" on notice that they are at risk, rather than kill 100,000+ of their troops, who's only sin is they've been told they're protecting the homeland, too. We did things this way during Desert Storm. Wouldn't a more elegant option have been to put a 50 million USD bounty on Saddam? Let HIM duck and run, afraid of his own guys.
Just a thought....
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (Epitoma rei militaris, Prologue, 3)
Edited by: The Sonarman at: 2/17/01 1:43:31 pm
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 101
(2/17/01 1:55:12 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Davis:
If the leader of a foreign nation dies as the result of a legitimate military strike by the US (Reagan was nearly successful with Gheddafi in 1986), there can be no objection. Had Bush been able to locate and eliminate Saddam during Desert Storm, this would have worked to the benefit of everyone involved in the campaign. Fact is, we couldn't get to him without a massive invasion of Iraq's urban centers, and we agreed with our allies we wouldn't do this, although we certainly could have unilaterally.
But assassination of foreign leaders, contemplated within the proposed change in the law, is a different matter entirely. The law would state unilaterally and unequivocally to all foreign leaders, and to all of the people over whom each of them exercises sovereignty, that the US alone has the right to take out that leader within its sole discretion. Here lies the problem.
It is not a moral issue. In international affairs, one looks only at cause and effect, not at moral issues. The US does not intend to be hegemonous, but chooses instead to work with other nation-states (Other nations, if armed like us, would probably choose hegemony).
The new change in US law which openly and unilaterally permits assassinations of foreign leaders would work substantially to our detriment with other nations.
Achilles.
Jeff Davis
Gold Star Member
posts: 114
(2/17/01 2:09:12 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But assassination is a legitimate military function. I would argue that the US needs to take several major steps back from world involvement, Pre-Wilson days would be nice. Let us trade with any who wish to trade with us. Read Washington's Farewell Address for the foreign policy America needs to adopt.
Achilles
Gold Star Member
posts: 103
(2/17/01 2:22:58 pm)
| Del Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Davis:
I think it's a nice idea in theory. But the world is much different now when compared with Wilson's time. Two giant things are happening simultaneously.
1. Unfortunately, the technology for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems is proliferating at a dangerous rate throughout the world. Ever growing threat of total destruction.
2. Fortunately, however, the world is moving toward democratically-elected governments everywhere. Democracies are generally non-hegemonous, giving rise to the prospect of eventual universal peace.
Can 2 outrun 1?
The US needs to stay heavily involved internationally to help 2 outrun 1!!
A return to isolationism, combined with developing a missile shield, constitutes a bad case of myopia.
Achilles.
RKfalken
Gold Star Member
posts: 167
(2/17/01 7:20:39 pm)
| Del
Re: Bill in congress to OK foreign assassinations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm for it. What a stupid liberal idea to protect murdering tyrants. I'm so sick of their squeamish lemming sheeple notions I could puke."
Yeah! what a dumb idea to make sure that the CIA couldn't take out anybody that we don't like.
I say that making sure that we don't go around killing leaders helps our reputation and keeps most conspiracy fanatics at bay.
Also.. a exploding cigar to Havana does sound good.
AtomicLibSmasher
ezOP/TaskMaster
posts: 1155
(2/17/01 7:29:03 pm)
| Del
someone say "cigar"?
http://warlady1.com/pics/slickcigar.gif
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal" - Slick Clinton
RKfalken
Gold Star Member
posts: 169
(2/17/01 7:30:19 pm)
| Del
Re: someone say "cigar"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Libby, can you make one of those for Castro?