|
I think John Dean is a pretty respected voice here at DU. Here he's taking seriously questions about assassination in the war on terror. It's hardly "silly" to ask questions about this policy, imo. And I seriously doubt anyone called these questions silly when they were asked about Bush. What would be silly would be to stop asking the questions because the president is a democrat, or maybe worse, because you like the president. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20010914.html
Can Bush "Take Out" Osama bin Laden?
According to the New York Times, once again Osama bin Laden is the leading suspect in Tuesday's attacks. The man, and his compatriots, already stands accused of prior terrorist attacks against the United States.
For many, that raises a simple question: Why doesn't Bush just "take him out"? It is a much discussed question if my telephone calls are any indication of what is on the minds of many. And it is not an unreasonable question, given the circumstances.
Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, prohibiting the use of force in international affairs, has been viewed as precluding assassinations for political purposes. The U.S. Army's field manual, interpreting applicable international agreements, similarly prohibits "assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy 'dead or alive.'" It does not, however, "preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere."
During the Nixon administration, the United States became a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents. This is one of the few multinational agreements that addresses, and prohibits, assassination of foreign leaders. It is not clear, however, that bin Laden would be protected by this agreement.
Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan all issued Executive Orders precluding the use of assassinations, following the revelation of the Senate investigation into activities of prior Presidents. Reagan's Executive Order 12333 states that "o person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." That Executive Order was left standing by Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Clinton. Thus, it currently remains the law.
Personally, I was struck to find that Professor Turner had earlier addressed the question that once again is on the minds of many Americans, no doubt including President Bush. Turner found no legal restraint against "targeting of an individual terrorist or terrorist leader when necessary to neutralize an ongoing series of terrorist attacks, as long as peaceful remedies have been exhausted and alternative strategies would result in a greater loss of human life."
More specifically, Turner contends that:
Killing someone like Osama bin Laden, who is engaged in an ongoing campaign of lethal violence against Americans, is an act of self-defense, not an act of murder, and since "assassination" is by definition a form of "murder," that issue is not raised by such a policy. Further, even were this not true, the prohibition against "assassination" in Executive Order 12333 is not a "law," but merely a Presidential pronouncement which may be repealed, modified, or suspended on an ad hoc basis by an incumbent President.
Nor will Americans likely mourn his passing.
|