US Political assassinations

[Doulton]

I just saw a poll on the nestscape homepage, "Poll: Should U.S. law be changed to allow the assassination of hostile foreign leaders?"
At the time that I looked, 74% had voted yes.

With great restraint I will say only this: Wankers. How can so many people be so stupid?

 

[CelestialBody]

Stupid

 

[Debbie]

Doulton,
As a fellow New Zealander I say, Gidday, Kia ora, hi what ever... and in response to your thread... how would we feel if the terrorists had taken out the Beehive and half of Auckland?
The Americans are totally stunned, ... think about how would we react? Stunned disbelief? Reaction? "Poll: Should N.Z law be changed to allow the assassination of hostile foreign leaders? Retribution? Is assassination going to solve the problem? NO, I say but the instant poll response would probably be yes. Stupid? No. Reactionary, yes and it is totally understandable...

 

[Doulton]

I see you didn't take time out and count to ten like I did CB. My sentiments exactly.

 

[p_p_man]

Polls are easy to answer...

and just as easy to refute.

I saw that poll but didn't go into it. So 74% eh?

In the present atmosphere it surprises me that the figure is so low.

 

[A_Jacks]

Exactly!

We should stand impotently by while they try to assasinate our leaders and kill our people.

It is sure to make us a much stronger, better people. Look how enlightened the Indians are with thier dealings towards Pakistan. They never shoot back do they. And they are very willing to conceed some useless land for peace. Aren't they? Yes the sub-continent, much like Britan is a perfect example of how to handle this situation.

The only bad example I can think of is how Isreal deals with terrorism. Why don't they just pack up and leave for southern Florida. After all, they are not wanted by the enlightend muslim nations of the middle east, so they should do the civilized thing and relocate before they have to be forcibly led off to the ovens again. Or they should follow the path of the politically correct at Masada.

Now think deeper the next time you chide us for trying to simplify things Celeste the Body you twit wrapped in a philosopher's robe.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Lancaster]

But how would a law be drafted to make legal the murder of any national, foreign or otherwise? It would be impossible.

 

[Guest]

It's a moot point, you fucking idiots.

In a war, you don't need permission to kill people.

I'm agreeing with A_J...it must be cooling off in hell today.

 

[CelestialBody]

Hs Congress declared war?

 

[Debbie]

Quote from A_Jacks



"Now think deeper the next time you chide us for trying to simplify things Celeste the Body you twit wrapped in a philosopher's robe".

Quote from unregistered
"It's a moot point, you fucking idiots.

In a war, you don't need permission to kill people.

I'm agreeing with A_J...it must be cooling off in hell today."

Your point is? You buttheads? You are better because? You shoot first, ask questions later? Because you can hurl names and walk away saying that you were antoganised? War does not achieve peace but brings war on us all.


Quote by p_p_man
""If we are together nothing is impossible. If we are divided all will fail."

Winston S. Churchill

Stand alone, you racist pigs, for you fight alone. Stand together, the human race, fighting for peace, harmony and acceptance and we shall fight the enemy with truth on our side.

 

[Lancaster]

It's a moot point, you fucking idiots.

In a war, you don't need permission to kill people.

I'm agreeing with A_J...it must be cooling off in hell today.

Brains aren't your strong point. Are they?

 

[Doulton]

In a war you don't need permission to kill people? Who gives permission to make it a war? The only reason this is being called a war is because it happened to the US. As CB said, if this had happened in India (a terrorist action with equal casualties) the developed world would barely have taken notice. As much as Americans want to believe they're special, your lives are not worth more than other people's, and you do not have the right to decide when murder is justified. And if the best argument you can come up with is calling us fucking idiots, maybe you should examine your reasoning more closely.

 

[willywanker]

Let me first say, I don't want BenLaudin assassinated, I want him brought back in chains by an elite services group to stand trial. I don't wish to make him a martyr.

But to the point, there is no law on the books in the USA about the assassination of anyone outside the US. There is a presidential directive that was signed by I believe Gerald Ford that made it illegal to kill the head of state of another country but each successive president has the ability to change that by his own directive. Bill Clinton secretly did just that before sending in the cruise missiles when he tried unsuccessfully to get BenLaudin after the first attempt on the World Trade Center.

Even given that, BenLaudin is not the head of any country, he is the head of a terrorist group. He has no homeland, no government looks to him for leadership. So the question still doesn't apply if you ask me, which you didn't.

 

[Debbie]

I agree with willywanker
quote "Let me first say, I don't want BenLaudin assassinated, I want him brought back in chains by an elite services group to stand trial. I don't wish to make him a martyr."
If Ben Laudin is made a martyr then hundreds perhaps thousands will follow/replace him.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Doulton]

Oh, sorry CB
And the name is Osama bin Laden

I don't know much about US to be honest, but I would think that if it wasn't specifically covered anywhere, then assassinations would simply be treated as any other murder. Can someone explain why this may not be the case if it isn't? And I mean a real answer, not some dipshit spouting "this is war" slogans.

 

[registered "^^"]

The C.I.A. use to employ killers for reason of foreign assassination. In the 70's when it came to light the American people put an end to it. What people are saying yes to when you take a poll immediately after what has happened is Bin Laden.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Are you people really arguing that, if we were given a chance to go back in time to before these attacks and kill Bin Laden it wouldn't be justified? (while we're at it, who wouldn't go back and kill Hitler before he had the chance to start World War II and kill 6 million Jews?)

This isn't simply a rhetorical question though. We stand at a moment in time where assassinating bin Laden will save lives. If we don't act his terrorists will kill again. and again. and again. These are not people with a mild distaste for America. This is a deep hatred, irrational as it may be. The murder of thousands in these and other attacks over the last several years shows these people have an obvious lack of respect for our lives. Why should I feel squeamish about my government protecting me from such barbarism?

In peacetime I wouldn't support the notion of our government ordering assassinations for "political differences", but when the chief "political difference" between the US and Osama bin Laden is that bin Laden repeatedly makes clear he wants to kill my countrymen and destroy my country, my reservations disappear.

I respect and admire pacifists who hold to the principle condemning all acts of killing, but if ever there was a case for justifiable assassination, this is it.

 

[shadowsource]

We banned it for OUR own good!

In the 70s, assassinations by the CIA, etc. were banned by Gerald Ford because iof BLOWBACKS - wherein a US overseas op has effects that reach into the domestic sphere, like a ricocheting bullet. Many thought Blowback accounted for JFK's assassination, following our efforts to kill Castro. Blowback accounts for bin Laden's power and prominence, as he was a key CIA operative in Afghanistan in the war against the Soviets.
The next Blowback could be if Pakistan has a revolution by bin Laden supporters, who get their hands on nuclear weapons. It's not at all unthinkable, except for people who are too ignorant and cocky to care about the future (like those CIA officers in Afghanistan, eh?).
We banned assassinations on the logical theory that it's really easy to assassinate the president of a democratic society, and somewhat harder to kill many of our opponents.
Any president can sign an order allowing an assassination. It's simple, and its accountable. The yahoos want to give CIA bureaucrats the right to decide what foreign leaders we can murder. Gee, who'll that be? Some Palestinians, some Columbians, maybe the next Milosevic, the next Commandante Zero (Eden Pastora), etc. Maybe the next Mandela, or Menachim Begin. Or Gerry Adams. It wouldn't be Saddam Hussein, our old stooge gone wrong.

 

[CelestialBody]

OC

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

what's not to understand?

CB- as willy posted rightly above, the policy prohibiting political assassinations is just that - a policy. Laws are made either by legislative action or by historical judicial precedent. The banning of political assassinations was ordered by executive directive, basically an order handed down straight from the President. Such policies exist (and exist only) at the discretion of the President. Apparently Clinton dispensed with the no-assassination policy in 1998 just as a corporate CEO might send out a memo declaring Fridays to be "casual Fridays".

My point of course, is that the US Government assassinating a foreign leader does not violate any sacrosanct or fundamental American law. It's prohibited nowhere in the Constitution, or (as far as I know), statuory law, or judicial precedent.

Shadowsource- you obviously know a good bit more about the history of this practice than I do. I intuitively can recognize the potential negative consequences that you point out would arise from such a policy, though. Perhaps the "blowback" principle makes political assassination more trouble than it's worth, and assassination could definitely could nip an enlightened and peace-loving leader in the bud, but I don't see the latter argument working particularly well in this case, do you? ("I know Nelson Mandela. I've worked with Nelson Mandela. And you Osama bin Laden are no...")

In any case, I concede that as a matter of prudence (not as a matter of law), political assassinations should be avoided, but c'mon, guys. Tell me there's an exception here.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[lavender]

 

[shadowsource]

They CAN kill him!

As I understand it, all Bush has to do is determine that it's necessary. No laws need to be written. But there is a certain accountability in the process of certifying that it's approved. I absolutely oppose unleashing the CIA to start murdering foreign leaders. We helped kill lots of them in the 50s and 60s, including Patrice Lumumba of Congo, and the South Vietnamese Premier we were supposed to be supporting, and we sure tried to kill Castro. Don't forget that our brilliant security folks just blew this event pretty badly; do you want to give them the power to execute leaders that annoy them?

But think, folks: If we kill bin Laden tomorrow, do you really believe that this problem no longer exists? His top aides are the guys who had their Egyptian cadres murder 50+ tourists and cut off some of their noses in Luxor, where I was the only tourist a10 days later. This is a real network, a global business. If the Afghanis hand BL over tomorrow, what will Bush say? "Thanks - um, we want the others, too."
That's the problem with focusing on an individual as the embodiment of evil. That said, I hope they catch or kill him soon. But I certainly wouldn't feel that the problem has been solved.