So then, do other governments have the "right" to hunt down and kill

[Duer 157099]

anyone, including a US citizen, that they may consider a "war criminal"?

If not, why not?

[DJ13]

1. Israel would be the only country I can think of that would do that

[truedelphi]

2. Some nations do. Israel has hunted down people for years

And they have mastered such strange uses of technology as blowing some one up via their cell phone.
(Yet another reason to avoid that kind of device!)

But governments like Syria, Iran, (former) officials in Chechnia, Venezuela, Cuba et al do not.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. That's the danger of this kind of policy.

What's good for the goose, and all that.

Americans just never stop to consider that we may wind up as the gander at some point.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. If a crime was committed, they certainly have the right to hunt them down...

In hunting a criminal, deadly force is authorized if the criminal refuses to surrender or fights. So, yes, governments have the right to hunt down and kill (if necessary) war criminals. Actually, all governments have the right to hunt down and stop criminals form preying upon their citizens. Police forces everywhere are authorized to use deadly force when necessary to preserve life.

Is this a theoretical question or are you referring to a specific event.

[arbusto_baboso]

7. Even when that hunting violates other nations' sovereignty?

Then why even bother with extradition treaties? Does international law mean nothing, or have we become all about vengeance?

[Ozymanithrax]

13. Different countries do it different ways.

Spain, and I believe Canada, have declared the right to try war criminals for crimes against humanity. Whether those countries would send members of the police force into a country to arrest them against that other countries express desires is best left up to individual nations. Israel has pursued war criminals from WWII where ever they hid. Some crimes people should not be able to hide from.

Personally, I think we should. If a person committed crimes against humanity, then all governments should be willing to pursue those criminals where ever they go.

Many nations in the world have extradition treaties that allow extradition. Those should be used when possible. But philosophically, I don't think it would be right to let someone like Pol Pot escape the murder of a million people. We should have gone after him instead of letting him live out his life in relative comfort.

Some things are wrong, not just on a minor annoyance. War Criminals, should not be given a pass because seeing them punished causes political difficulties wether that person is Josef Mengele, Pol Pot, Cheney, Netanyahy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, or anyone else.

[arbusto_baboso]

22. Thing is, by ignoring international law, WE become criminals, too.

And we then open ourselves up to any kind of punsihment the international community sees fit to inflict on us.

Just because we are strong enough to throw our weight around with impunity now, doesn't mean we always will be. We need to think this through rationally.

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Then you are OK allowing mass murderers and war criminals to live peaceful and happy lives.

You are OK with allowing countries to protect them, thus becoming an accessory after the fact.

Pol Pot, who I mentioned elsewhere, killed more than million people. We let him live out his life rather than hunt him down. I think that was a bad and immoral decision. Certainly, sending in a team to take him by force out of Cambodia would not have been easy or politically expedient. But murdering a million people is something no country should accept. Anyone who protects such a person is also guilty of aiding and abetting that crime.

War is the most heinous of all human activities. For most of history there simply were no rules. In war, a country did whatever was necessary to win.

We have now set minimum rules of acceptability. Those who break those rules do not simply break the laws of a nation. Such crimes transcend borders.

[arbusto_baboso]

29. That's not what I said and you damn well know it.

Look at the Nuremburg Trials. That is the model I am proposing.

What you are suggesting isn't justice. It is vengeance, pure and simple, and it is NOT a progressive value, sorry to say.

Also, don't lecture me about how heinous war is. I have participated in that activity, and I wager that you have not.

[Ozymanithrax]

35. Nuremberg trials work only if you can get people to the court.

The U.S. fought WWII and turned war criminals over to that court. Many others got away. We don't live in a perfect world. War Criminals in many countries are protected. They are often powerful, well connected people who can not be reached by extradition.

Adolf Eichmann is a good example. There was simply no way to get him to the world court. Argentina knew damn well who and what he did and protected him anyway.

Pol Pot was unreachable. He was protected. He lived out his life.

The world court only works if all nations recognized it and are willing to send people there to be tried. It is a great idea, that the U.S. does not at this time recognize. The problem arises when the U.S., Argentina, Cambodia, or any other country chooses to protect war criminals rather than allow them to defend themselves and their actions in a court.

If we can get such criminals to a court, then we should. But in many cases, it is not possible. These criminals are protected by the full force of the law in the countries they reside in.

[sabrina 1]

59. And you are okay with giving the power of a monarch

to a U.S. president. As many have asked, and maybe the reason why even Republican presidents and members of Congress have not until now, supported this as a policy, is because of what should be obvious, such powers have been in the hands of rulers throughout history, and they have been abused.

America was founded on changing all of that. Clearly you disagree with the rule of law, with due process, with providing evidence of a crime that warrants the death penalty. I hope you are very much in the minority. This whole discussion should not even be taking place in a civilized society.

Consider yourself, and apparently Obama, to be in the company of one U.S. president, George Bush, who was in favor of abandoning the rule of law.

[tkmorris]

60. Po Pot killed over a million people...

Precisely BECAUSE he claimed the same authority you are willing to grant other world leaders here. The authority to say who deserves to be killed without a hearing in a court of law.

[treestar]

34. Problem with this case is that the International Community

may be siding with us, including, it appears, Yemen.

This is the sort of thing we supposedly wanted - rather than indiscriminately bombing Afghanis and Iraqis, figure out who the terrorists are and hunt them down.

[ManiacJoe]

27. "Can" and "should" are two different questions.

Extradition treaties are nice because you can get the "host" country to do the work for the "wanting" country. :-)

Can countries send hit teams into other countries? Sure, they can. Will there be consequences? You bet. Are the consequences worth it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The "punishment" if caught is sometimes just factored into the "cost of doing business". Sometimes you need to step outside the legal system to get justice, for varying definitions of justice.

[Hansel]

46. If the other nation has approve them coming in to get the guy

then there's no violation of the nation's sovereignty. Yemen is fighting these guys and wants them out of their country. They are working with the US.

[Fumesucker]

10. So Iraqis can come to America and hunt down Americans who have killed Iraqis?

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

14. !

[Ozymanithrax]

23. Thee is no law anywhere that I'm aware of that prohibits killing crickets...

unless they are an endangered species.

[Bluebear]

24. You beat

my edit! :rofl:

[Ozymanithrax]

15. KIlling someone in a war isn't a war crime. Killing in a war isn't generally a crime.

Now, if these people comitted war crimes...then Iraq should be able to puruse them. I wouldn't mind seeing Cheney hunted, arrested, and put on a docket. Would you?

The question was about war crimes, not combat.

[ManiacJoe]

17. They can try.

My money would be on a very low success rate.

[sabrina 1]

62. Wasn't that what 9/11 was all about? People feeling that the U.S.

was a threat to their national security? So they attacked the financial center of a super-power since they could not get to the leaders.

If we claim the right to do this, others can too. No leader of any country will be safe because there will always be some country who believes another country is a threat to their national security.

We used to have some morals in this country, but since the Democrats gained power, all pretense of being a law-abiding country seems to be gone.

[ManiacJoe]

78. No, that was not what 9/11 was about.

Unless you accept the "logic" that innocent people can be substituted for "criminal" to be killed.

[sabrina 1]

80. That's the problem with allowing countries to

assassinate those they believe are a threat to their security? THEY then get to decide who those people are. Who are you to say that those terrorists don't view all Americans as a threat to their security? Once you approve of such a policy, you cannot dictate to others who they view as a threat, can you?

What about the Fatwas issued against individuals in Muslim countries? Up to now, we COULD condemn them. But now? Again, who are we, once we go down that road, to say that those countries are not within their rights to determine who is a threat to them and who isn't?

This country just issued a Fatwa. We are now in the company of those we used to condemn.

[treestar]

33. Of course they could.

They do not do it because it is not practical.

International law - ultimately, might makes right.

[driver8]

36. Of course not -- that would be "terrorism"!

So, it has come to this...

We are now discussing the "hunting down and killing" of people without any type of trial.

Unbefuckinglievable.

[Ozymanithrax]

37. We are discussing hunting down war criminals in countries that refuse to extradite them...

That is not the same thing.

[sabrina 1]

61. Exactly right. We seem to think that only we can violate

long held agreements as to what is morally and legally acceptable. I can see the outrage here when someone from another country who considers this country a threat to their national security, exercises the same right to take out those they hold responsible, without formal charges, trial or conviction.

I never thought I would see this defended other than on a radical rightwing revenge seeking board. As I pointed out above, even Ronald Reagan would not lift the ban on political assassinations, publicly at least.

It seems that to some people, Obama can do no wrong. That is a very dangerous attitude, the same one that produced the Patriot Act when rightwingers were certain that the laws would never apply to them. The short-sightedness of party loyalists knows no bounds.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. So you can shoot a suspected shop lifter?

[ManiacJoe]

16. Legally, not in this country.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Here in the U.S., in general no. Now, if that shop lifter tried to escape..

and tried to hit you with an expensive vase, that would be deadly force, and, yes, I believe it is legal to shoot them. But you could not just walk up and put a cap in his ass.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Well why not, if he's suspected of a crime? Isn't that what you said? Suspician is enough?

[Ozymanithrax]

40. After looking though all my posts I never said "Suspician" is enough.

Could you please point out the post where I said that.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Oh, so you agree that in the absence of a trial and a guilty verdict that this would be

murder.

OK

I thought you were defending killing a suspect based on the suspicion that he committed a crime.

[Ozymanithrax]

44. Actually, I am saying we can hunt war criminals in other countires...

If they refuse to surrender, and use violence against those hunting them, they can be killed. I am assuming you are talking about the Anwar al-Awlaki, the man who conspired to murder American civilians, who has recruited terrorist to kill American Citizens, and who has called for Muslims to kill American Citizens. I would rather he be caught, brought back to the U.S., and if convicted, spend the rest of his life in jail. But, if he refuses to surrender and face a jury of his peers, if he chooses to fight and use violence against his pursuers then he can be killed.

But he is not being killed for suspicion, he is being killed because there is reasonable suspicion and he choses to act violently rather than surrender.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. oh so suspicion it is. No need for a conviction. Shoot first, ask questions later!

Might makes right!

And as for the rule of law, why it's toast!

[Ozymanithrax]

49. No, he has a choice to come home and face the law.

Read Article III section 3 of the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

What he has done fits the Constitutional definition of treason. If he is innocent, he should surrender immediately and insist that he be tried by a jury of his peers.

If he does not, then those attempting to return him for trial are authorized to kill him if he refuses. Those trying to capture him are authorized to defend themselves against him if he does not surrender.

Personally, I prefer he surrender. I think a life long prison term is preferable, and he has a chance to show that his actions are innocent honest. But, in order to protect the citizens that he threatens with his actions, it is not acceptable that he simply be allowed to continue to make war against the country.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. That's not what the press is reporting. Where are you getting your information from?

What I'm reading is that the Obama administration has ordered the assassination of an American citizen who now lives in Yemen.

Your assertion that they intend to try him if possible isn't being reported anywhere. Every story I've read says he's on the hit list.

Who are thge two witnesses who testified against him in court? I'd like to read what they testified to, and I'd like to see what they said under cross examination by his counsel.

Are you asserting that he's been convicted of treason? When and where. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

64. What evidence is there that any of the people targetedby

the U.S. are guilty of what they U.S. claims? You are promoting extra-judicial murder with no habeas corpus rights, no requirement for the accuser, in this case the U.S. president, or more correctly, 'king', to prove his case to anyone. You are going back centuries to the middle-ages where kings had this power.

Do you remember Al Zarqawi eg? This country claimed he was the leader of Al Queda in Iraq and deserved to be assassinated. But as it turned out, he was nothing more than a petty criminal and had no connection to Al Queda. That didn't stop people in this country cheering on the assassination attempts during which, btw, many innocent civilians died.

And when a U.S. General admitted that the whole hysteria around Al Zarqawi was mostly not true and most of the propaganda was simply to serve a greater purpose of scaring Iraqis (he couldn't admit it was to keep up support for the WOT in the U.S. as that would have been illegal) the U.S. media dropped the story.

Do you trust any president to be judge and jury in the life and death along with the inevitable 'accidental' killing of innocent civilians, of any human being? What a dark, regressive policy you are supporting.

[Hansel]

47. If they are going to blow you up, yes. nt

[mudplanet]

41. I'm glad you cleared that up. So Nicaragua has the right to send

assassins to kill people in Texas who held public meetings to raise money for the Contras and especially to kill Ollie North. Good.

And Colombia has the right to send a hit team to murder the people on the board of directors of Chiquita for material support to terrorists in Colombia.

And Chile has the right to send someone in to shoot those who were in the CIA in the early 1970s that collaborated in the murder of their legally elected president and caused the subsequent torture and murder of thousands of his supporters. I think the Hondurans, Guatemalans and Panamanians may want to get in on that one.

I suppose, also, that Angola should rapidly appoint a murder team to kill some State department employees that were closely involved in funneling weapons to Jonas Savimbi, which he used in his decade long terrorist actions against the legal government of Angola.

And the Afghans should immediately dispatch an assassination team to kill Charlie Wilson and the cooze that financed his activities to overthrow the Afghan government. Maybe the Russians could collaborate on that little bit of justice.

Wow. Now we're getting somewhere. Finally, some real justice is going to be meted out. I've been waiting for this for nearly three decades. Too bad Reagan is dead already, the Salvadorans could really get some "pay back."

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Not everyone gets to do it. Just Empire America. We are special and better than everybody else.

[Ozymanithrax]

53. No, all nations have the right to self defense against people who conspire to murder...

their citizens. All countries have the right to seek out War Criminals. This isn't a privilege of empire. It is a right of a nation to protect itself and seek justice for its citizens.

[John Q. Citizen]

54. So you are asserting the right of many nations to seek justice violently against Americans

for our killing their citizens? Am I understanding you correctly?

You believe that Chile , Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, and Cuba (just to name a few) have the right to come here and kill Americans they suspect being involved with the death of their citizens?

Interesting. I've never ever heard anybody say that those countries have the right to come to America and kill our citizens who were involved with those actions.

Where would I find this right written down and codified? I'd be interested in reading about it.

[Ozymanithrax]

56. The right of self defense is inherent in nationhood...

Yes, those nations could. You find the right to self defense in the Just War Doctrine and the United Nations Charter.

Whether or not they would do that is not the issue. But they do have the right to do that. Most nations have worked out ways of handling such disagreements. We have extradition treaties in some cases. In others, nations simply refuse to extradite their citizens. By choice, they protect the criminals. If we can agree that Cheney and Bush committed war crimes, then we also must agree that they are protected from facing justice by the full force of the U.S. government. This happens in other countries, also.

Going into another nation and kidnapping their citizens to face trial may not be the ideal solution, but in some cases it is the only solution. Adolf Eichmann, the father of the final solution, was kidnapped by Israel against the wishes of Argentina. Argentina knew he was a war criminal with 20 million dead on his hands. They didn't care.

Pol Pot, who instigated the killing fields and murdered a million of his fellow citizens was protected by his country and died in relative comfort. We should have done something about him.

[EFerrari]

63. Then I suppose you support the freeing of the Cuban Five

who were five Cuban agents who came here to gather information about ongoing terrorist activity against Cuba and instead of processing the information, the FBI arrested them.

[John Q. Citizen]

68. But Eichmann was tried and convicted. Israel didn't announce that their policy was to

But Eichmann was tried and convicted. Israel didn't announce that their policy was to

locate and assassinate Eichmann, like the Obama administration just announced their policy is concerning the cleric they put on their execution list.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

[mudplanet]

67. Yes. I am asserting that other nations have the same rights as the United States.

[mudplanet]

69. Where is it "written down and codified?" In exactly the same place that you found it

written down and codified that the US has the right to go to other countries and capture or kill people involved in those actions.

You've never heard anyone say that other people should have the same rights to justice as Americans? You must have a very limited social life and, if you went to school, you must have only sought out teachers that told you what you wanted to hear.

[John Q. Citizen]

70. Hey, put down the booze and figure out how to use a threaded message board.

And please read our rules. You are violating them, and if you keep it up, a mod will hunt you down and tombstone you.

I know that's not a violation of international law.

Here's where it's written down. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Please see #3

[mudplanet]

73. Oh, Jesus. I've done it again. Gone and got upset over the simple

matters of murder, torture and justice. I should be able to talk about these things dispassionately.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. No, you should learn how to use a threaded discussion board and reply to the right person

instead of attacking someone who is arguing against using assassination as a foreign policy tool.

I'm arguing against it. Got it?

[Ozymanithrax]

50. The country if Nicaragua has the right to seek out people who commit war crimes in their nation...

But the question in the OP was not to send assassins. Does a country have the right to hunt war criminals being protected by another country. A war crime transcends nationalities. So they do have the right to seek out justice for their citizens. It wouldn't bother me if North were forced to stand trial for what happened in Nicaragua. However, Anwar al-Awlaki, is not simply being assassinated, which is what his is all about. Obama authorized him to be captured or killed. I am quite content to see him captured and tried. Let the courts decide if he is innocent of conspiring to murder innocents at Fort Hood, or of recruiting and sending the underwear bomber to bomb up a plane load of innocent people. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. That gives probable to cause to look for him.

I hope he surrenders. If he does not, and those sent to capture or kill him can not with the full help and assistance of Yemen who consider him a criminal also, are unable to take him alive, then they have a responsibility to the innocents who will be murdered by people he sends to do his killing. If he doesn't surrender then he is responsible for the loss of his life.

[mudplanet]

51. I'm sorry. How is issuing a "Wanted Dead or Alive" edict different from

sending assassins?

Just because you dress it up in terminology like "war crime" to, apparently, differentiate what he did/is doing from what Ollie North and other Americans do/did doesn't make it any different.

Yes, he's responsible for his crimes. But as near as I can tell he hasn't to date actually killed any Americans while George Bush et al are responsible for killing something like a million innocent people. Shouldn't the Iraqis be able to issue a "Wanted Dead or Alive" edict against him.

What's the difference between a Wanted Dead or Alive edict and a fatwa?

"Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. That gives probable to cause to look for him." Jesus, we got a long list of those bastards living in the US. How about we clean up our own house first?

[Ozymanithrax]

52. Capture or kill (try to be accurate) involves capture.

An assassin has only one option.

Yes, conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Conspiracy to murder innocent people at Fort Hood is a crime. Accessory to murder of the people at Fort Hood is a crime. Conspiracy to blow up an airplane with 150 people aboard is a crime. Accessory to 150 murder attempts is a crime. Openly advocating for all Muslims to kill Americans in order to change our form of government is a crime. (Fortunately, most Muslims know this guy is a Muslim tea partier, but there are a lot of people who will follow him.) There is sufficient evidence to try the man. But they need to go get him, and he is surrounded and protected by a small army attempting to overthrow Yemen. They are authorized to kill him if he can not be captured, and considering that he is a grave danger to innocent people that is a reasonable precaution. He is, after all, waging war against the United States.

Yes, they arrested 9 members of Hutaree for doing the same thing. Hutaree conspired to murder a police officer and then bomb the funeral to murder more police officers and the relatives of those police officers in order to start a civil war (Sedition and murder). So, they are working on it. And, had the Hutaree had weapons with them and decided to fight, they would have been shot dead.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. What does that have to do with Nicaraguans coming here and attempting to

capture CIA agents, Corporate leaders, politicians, ex-politicians, military personnel, and retired military personnel who were responsible or involved in the deaths of thousands of Nicaraguans.

You are asserting that they have that right, are you not?

If we looked at all the countries that you assert have this right to enter US territory and to capture or kill (if need be)Americans who were involved in the deaths of their citizen, that would make a very long list of countries that you say have a legitimate right to do that.

In fact, what you are asserting, as far as I can tell, is that Iraq , for example, has the right to enter the US and try to capture or, if necessary, kill, all the service members, as well as all the congress people and those in the executive branch who voted funding for, or administered funding for, the illegal Iraqi invasion.

Do you have a link to the international law that gives them that right?

Or are you just making all this stuff up on the fly?

You keep saying it's a right, so where's the beef. Where can I read it?

[Ozymanithrax]

58. Yes, they do. Just as we have that right...

They may not choose to exercise that right, but it is there.

In November of 2009, An Italian judge has convicted 23 Americans - all but one of them CIA agents - and two Italian secret agents for the 2003 kidnap of a Muslim cleric. The United States will not extradite those people, though we do have an extradition treaty with Italy. We chose to protect the criminals for reasons of state. Italy will not exercise their right to seek justice, though these people had better never enter Italy or a country that is willing to spit in the eye of the U.S.

A country has the right to seek justice for its citizens, to defend itself.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. And you are asserting that Italy has the right to fire, for example, a cruise missle into the

US to attempt to kill these people they have convicted already in a court of law.

You are also asserting, I believe, that Italy HAS THE RIGHT to kill anyone it's leader decides is implicated in killing it's citizens, right? After they fire the missile, the UN will back them up, because it's there right, right?

I'm not talking trial here, I'm talking assassination, because that's what every single news report in every single outlet has quoted the Obama administration as saying.

That they are going to kill this guy if they can, and that Obama has taken on the role of judge jury and executioner. And you are asserting that that is his right? Do I read you correctly? You believe that it's Obama's right to kill anyone he decides is responsible for killing a US citizen? Kind of like a king?

I believe you are wrong, I don't believe Obama. or any president has the right to order the assassination of anyone he s believes has killed a US citizen. That would completely violate due process. You are wrong about this, IMHO.

[mudplanet]

65. What the fuck do I need a link for? Do you have a link to the international law that gives

the US the right to kill people on foreign soil who they suspect of violating US or international law yet denies other countries that same right? Why is it ok for the US to do it and not ok for other countries to act on the same principle?

If you're asserting, as I think you are, that domestic or international law, or simple moral principles, give the US the right to enter foreign countries to capture or kill people that the US asserts have broken US or international law (this is what you are asserting, isn't it?), then why the hell don't you believe that other countries have the right to enter US territory and arrest or kill US citizens who that country asserts have broken international or domestic laws?

This seems to me to be a clear example of American exceptionalism, and it's pure bullshit.

I'm serious. What the fuck makes you believe that it's ok for us to so something and not ok for others to do it?

You might think that that right exists simply under the moral principle that murders, torturers and war criminals should be either prosecuted or killed no matter where they are and what their nationality.

It may have escaped your notice at the time, but every American killed in the Vietnam War was killed on Vietnamese soil, and every Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam War was killed on Vietnamese soil, while at the same time every Iraqi killed in the Iraqi War was killed on Iraqi soil and every American killed in the Iraqi war was killed on Iraqi soil. No Americans in either conflict were killed in America, or anywhere else for that matter.

I don't need a link to assert that grass is green, the sky is blue, and murder and torture are wrong. Some principles are so simple that they speak for themselves.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. Why are you writing like that to some one who is arguing against the Obama

doctrine of assassination?

I'm opposed to assassination. Yet you seem to have confused me with someone else. I would suggest you settle down and figure out how to use a threaded message board. I think your personal attacks (against the rules by the way) are intended for somebody else.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

57. You must not be aware that assassination is against

U.S. and International law. Every president, from Gerald Ford, to Carter including Ronald Reagan has upheld the ban on political assassinations.

The President is not a judge. By going along with lifting the ban on political assassinations, President Obama has placed himself alongside George Bush, who was the first president to argue that because of 9/11, and by declaring someone an enemy combatant he had the authority of a king and could order the assassination of someone he decided deserved the death penalty.

Airc, there was huge outcry from the left about Bush's claim that he had the power of a king. Suddenly now that we have a Democrat going even further than Bush, it is okay? What changed other than the 'R' after Bush's name?

Political Assassinations

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:

5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination:

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

Bob Barr tried to introduce a bill legalizing Political Assassinations before 9/11. Not even one Republican signed on as a co-sponser. When he tried again after 9/11, he was able to get only 14 co-sponsors.

It is truly disturbing that this country is going down this path and that it is being led there by a Democratic president. If this was bush, this OP would not be asking a question about it, it would be denouncing it.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

79. Yes, even he would not publicly state that the U.S. would

engage in political assassinations. That's how abhorrent they are. Torturer, secret assassin, whatever, he knew better than to admit what the U.S. was doing, didn't he? Why do you think he hid his crimes??? Because he knew they were wrong. And he knew the world would condemn them. So, publicly he pretended we were a civilized country.

Obama is going beyond that, he is flaunting the descent of this country into third world dictator status.

[Deep13]

5. My understanding is that...

...any uniformed military force may kill the uniformed military force of a declared enemy. Also, any foreign national out of uniform in a militarily controlled area during a war may be killed as a spy. Anyone suspected of a crime in civilian controlled area would be subject to arrest and trial and whatever civil penalties recognized by that nation's laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Here's a list of nations that we have been critical

whey they have done this before.

Israel, which has the most recent example

The Russian Federation

The USSR

China

A few developing world countries

Burma

Oh and this is the SHORT list, aka what I remember from actually readying press.

So next time this happens, and State is all in a twitter, well that is kind of being a tad on the hypocritical side.

[Echo In Light]

19. +1

[Bigmack]

8. Chik Deney, perhaps?... nt

[jody]

9. Don't know about "right" but many countries particularly Israel murder at will. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

11. And look at how much safer and secure it's made them. I sure wish we were as secure as

Israel. (jk)

[jody]

20. Interesting books, Victor Ostrovsky's "By Way of Deception" & "The Other Side of Deception"

[rhett o rick]

21. Your question is very general, but I would answer that no government

should have the right to decide who they can execute. I believe in the rule of law in lieu of chaos.

[Uzybone]

25. LOL. They ( and we ) do it all the time

This place is losing touch with reality. Do people not even follow the news?

[treestar]

26. There is no way to enforce international law

That is why it can be flouted. Any country "can" do it and will if it feels strong enough. The other country has to be able to do something about it. It is my understanding Yemen's government works with ours on this.

France refused to extradite certain accused criminals to the U.S. There's nothing we can do about it, unless we consider it important enough to attack them over it. And even then, suppose it were the other way round? The weaker country can do nothing.

Not to say international law is not a good thing. But there is no greater police power over all countries. So therefore it's not like regular law.

[Echo In Light]

30. As a superpower the US is a leading outlaw state routinely violating international law

And being such a superpower also plays a substantial role in why/how int law is easily ignored/flouted

[treestar]

32. That's as may be

Yemen "could" in theory, just kick us out and tell us it is none of our business.

[Dr Morbius]

31. Hmm.

Nations have a right to self-defense. I hope you will accept this as a given.

Self-defense for a nation means not only the land but the people of that nation.

If a nation determines an individual living in another nation is a war criminal, there are extradition treaties under international law. If the individual in question is acting from a nation with whom the first nation has no extradition treaties, the first nation can reasonably be expected to do whatever is possible to end the action of the war criminal.

Nations have gone to war for millennia for this reason. It hasn't happened recently because the nature of war itself has changed drastically in the last two hundred years. Two hundred years ago was the time of Napoleon Bonaparte, whose clever use of cannon revolutionized war. But even then armies retreated to fields of battle; war today is a much more lethal force which affects citizens much more than ever before. Thankfully, there are fewer wars these days than there used to be, although there still seems to be as much violence. Wars today are usually between powers and upstarts: China and Nepal, Russia and the little nations which used to be under the Bear's arm, America and Iraq/Grenada/Afghanistan.

And as has always been the case, powerful nations can dictate such minor matters as hunting down war criminals, whereas minor nations cannot dictate to powerful nations. Between powers, pragmatic governments employ extradition treaties, because the damage from wars between powers is something no one can afford.

In short, no nation is going to hunt down American citizens in our streets. It just isn't going to happen. The United States will dissolve on its own, and become separate nations just as ultraconservatives want, before this is tolerated.

As to a nation's "right," every nation has a right to protect her citizens. If a nation is able to do so within international law, that nation should. If a nation is not able to do so within law, only a fool would think they'd stop trying.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. No. It is only good when it is our guy who does it.

To some, that is the way they look at it. I do not agree with those who see it that way.

You point out one of many problems with ordering hits, no matter the citizenship or the crime.

[fascisthunter]

43. they do now thanks to the sociopathic right wing dorks pulling the strings

[Juche]

76. Not if those war criminals are too powerful

No, not in that case. These laws only go after the weak. Kissinger as an example will die of old age rather than due to a Chilean international death squad operating on US soil.