Webpage title: Is the US Justified in Their Assassination Policy?

[Monique]

I just wonder, isn't there an international law against performing an assassination on political figures? I thought that the US felt strongly against assassinations because of the incidents Marther Luther King, Kennedy, and others?

Then why is the US military trying so desperately to bomb buildings of which they have intelligence that Saddam & regime is staying there? The window of opportunity as it was called of the first bombing of Bagdad was solely intended to kill Saddam and his sons right? I would think that this falls under the chapter of war-crimes, does it not..

 

[kat]

I believe international law prohibits executing anyone in custody or targeting anyone who is not a combatant. Other then that I'm uncertain as to the legal issues.

 

[climbhi]

Yes, I believe that commonly it is declared that assasination of Head's of States is a violation of International Law. However, I do not know if this holds during war time scenario's, it would seem like a little bit of a ridiculous rule to impose in war time situations, but at least according to my Int'l Relations professor killing a head of state is against Int'l Law (at least in peace time...)

 

[russ_watters]

During war, the military command structure is necessarily fair game - and the despot is certainly a part (the top) of that command structure.

 

[GENIERE]

During war the entire population of the enemy may be slaughtered legally as long as it’s indiscriminate (you have to kill without regard to race or creed). The USA and others have agreed to exclude some types of weapons. For example, the use of A-bombs and H-bombs is ok, but not the use of neutron bombs, chemical and biological weapons. If the US or the Brits wanted to use a neutron bomb, they could as long as they had a good excuse like "oops, it must have been labled wrong!".

We are not at war with Iraq, but the US congress has authorized the use of force just as it did prior to Desert Storm, another non-war. The congress has also approved funding the action. This is all the authority our president needs to prosecute a military action including targeting specific individuals. What the rest of the world or the UN considers legal or not legal is irrelevant. Our president needs only to abide by the US constitution. The constitution requires the president to defend the population and it’s interests. I agree with his action, you may not. Your opinion and my opinion can be registered in a voting booth. If you’re impatient and believe the president is acting illegally, you can petition your representative to begin an impeachment process or engage in peaceful anti-war protest. As for me, I would petition to block the impeachment and protest in opposition.

Regards

 

[russ_watters]

Geniere, things have changed somewhat since our last declared war (wwii). The targeting of civilians is no longer acceptable as a tactic in warfare.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Geniere, things have changed somewhat since our last declared war (wwii). The targeting of civilians is no longer acceptable as a tactic in warfare.

Too bad NOBODY follows that rule.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Monique
I just wonder, isn't there an international law against performing an assassination on political figures?

Short answer: No.

I thought that the US felt strongly against assassinations because of the incidents Marther Luther King, Kennedy, and others?

S.A.: No.

Then why is the US military trying so desperately to bomb buildings of which they have intelligence that Saddam & regime is staying there? The window of opportunity as it was called of the first bombing of Bagdad was solely intended to kill Saddam and his sons right? I would think that this falls under the chapter of war-crimes, does it not..

S.A.: No.

Long answers: there is NO international governing body to enact or enforce such legislation; U.S. foreign policy regarding assassinations is more a result of the Kennedy era fiascos directed at Diem and Castro; assassination of a head of state can be considered a (war) crime only in the event that the victim is in the custody of another power and executed without some sort of due process --- Patrice Lumumba is a possible example. The "due process" at the end of WW II was a bit farcical in that several convictions were generated as ex post facto violations of common behavioral standards which were not specifically included in the previous Geneva and Hague conventions

 

[heumpje]

I thought the AMERICAN law prohibited assasination of head's of state... I thought there was this bill from the '70's stating that US presidents were not allowed to give such orders.

 

[GENIERE]

Russ

I don’t agree. Just because the US has the ability to fight a more humane war (mutually exclusive words I guess) against the Iraqis doesn’t mean it would fight a similar war against China. Against China, we would be forced to use all possible means against them as they would against us.

That is not the point I was trying to make concerning legality. There is no legality in war. Treaties, pacts, agreements, commitments, and rules of engagement are discarded without a second thought. Winners are never prosecuted for war crimes, losers always are. The US does not need to use all means against Iraq, and is not. The Iraqis do have to use all means and are. Wars simply progress in the vilest manner, consume everything, destroy reason, and leave horror in their wake.

In another thread I was said to be pro-war. The fact is I am anti-war. This war is necessary to avoid a much larger one in the future, one we would not win even if we were victorious as millions would die. Terrorism must stop. It must stop now.

This war need not have occurred. It was the failure of the UN to act, which encouraged Saddam to think he would avoid the consequences off supporting terrorism. Unfortunately, I think this is just the first step. The second step is always easier. The second step can only be avoided if the enlightened nations put politics, jealously and economics to the side and present a united front against those who abhor freedom.

I’m reasonably well educated, reasonably well read, reasonably well traveled. I know the USA, with all its faults, is the best of the best. All of us prefer democracy, some of us prefer socialism, some prefer capitalism, and some prefer a mix. We’ll work it out, because were free to do so.

Regards

 

[damgo]

heumpje, the US policy against assassinations is just an executive order; the president can change it at will, and I believe he does not even need to make it public.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by heumpje
I thought the AMERICAN law prohibited assasination of head's of state... I thought there was this bill from the '70's stating that US presidents were not allowed to give such orders.

Yes, that is what I heard too. So Damgo seems to have answered the question?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Monique
Yes, that is what I heard too. So Damgo seems to have answered the question?

While what Damgo said is accurate, I don't think it is an answer to your question. Saddam Hussein was not targetted because of a change in US policy. He was targetted because he was the commander of the forces opposing the US in an armed conflict.

Njorl

 

[Monique]

So Saddam has every right in the world to bomb the white house when he has intelligence that Bush is inside without facing any procecution because they are at war and Bush is against him? Hypothetical situation, I am just curious.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Too bad NOBODY follows that rule.

EVERY civilized (read: westernized) nation follows that guideline including the US. And you know it.

I thought the AMERICAN law prohibited assasination of head's of state... I thought there was this bill from the '70's stating that US presidents were not allowed to give such orders.

That's Carter's executive order. As such it carries no weight whatsoever.
edit: oops, damgo got there first.

I don’t agree. Just because the US has the ability to fight a more humane war (mutually exclusive words I guess) against the Iraqis doesn’t mean it would fight a similar war against China. Against China, we would be forced to use all possible means against them as they would against us.

Geniere, that's a pretty out there hypothetical, but I'll bite. First off, its not possible for the US to invade China, so we won't. They simply have too many people. Its not relevant to say 'if we wanted to invade china...' If I had wings I could fly. Second, China is incapable of sending an army across the Taiwan straight much less the Pacific without our approval. So they can't invade the US.

Yes, being the world leader gives us this luxury, but its part of the equation. If we were on the verge of annihilation by a foreign power, would we lash out with nukes? Maybe. But since its not even currently in the realm of possibility, its a pointless hypothetical. Maybe its a turnaround of "might makes right." Might gives us the LUXURY of not needing to break the rules.

That is not the point I was trying to make concerning legality. There is no legality in war. Treaties, pacts, agreements, commitments, and rules of engagement are discarded without a second thought. Winners are never prosecuted for war crimes, losers always are. The US does not need to use all means against Iraq, and is not. The Iraqis do have to use all means and are. Wars simply progress in the vilest manner, consume everything, destroy reason, and leave horror in their wake.

I'll more or less agree with that, Geniere with a couple of caveats. The allies DID (for the most part) adhere to the existing rules of warfare during WWII. For example, we treated our POWs well. In fact, the very idea of discaring the rules of warfare is a relatively new concept (invented, not surprisingly, by the US in 1776).

Also, losers in war are NOT always prosecuted or punished. We prosecuted the German government but did not punish the German people after WWII. WHY? Do you believe in the concept of a "just war"? Just because we win doesn't automatically make us right, but just because we aren't automatically right doesn't mean we are automatically wrong.

Also, RE Iraq specifically. The rules of warfare are also designed for YOU to protect YOUR OWN civilians. By breaking the rules of warfare, Saddam is both directly and indirectly killing his own people (shooting them in the back is direct, putting AAA batteries on the roofs of schools is indirect). Those rules are almost never broken because most countries even when faced with their own annihilation won't help you annihilate them.

I’m reasonably well educated, reasonably well read, reasonably well traveled. I know the USA, with all its faults, is the best of the best. All of us prefer democracy, some of us prefer socialism, some prefer capitalism, and some prefer a mix. We’ll work it out, because were free to do so.

IMO, me too - and I agree with your conclusion.

So Saddam has every right in the world to bomb the white house when he has intelligence that Bush is inside without facing any procecution because they are at war and Bush is against him? Hypothetical situation, I am just curious.

Thats a toughie, Monique. If both sides are equal then yes. But do you know of the concept of a "just war"? Applied to this situation, Saddam is in the wrong so ANY action he takes besides comitting suicide or giving into exile or voluntarily disarming is illegal (the US may also be in the wrong, but on a different issue, so save it guys). This can NOT however be construed to allow the US to conduct the war in any way we see fit. We are still bound by the rules as well.

This has become a most interesting (not to mention generally logical and civil) thread. Nice to see people can discuss tough issues intellectually instead of emotionally every now and then.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Monique
So Saddam has every right in the world to bomb the white house when he has intelligence that Bush is inside without facing any procecution because they are at war and Bush is against him? Hypothetical situation, I am just curious.

Yes, for the most part. There are some details, which neither side would probably pay much attention to though. Since Iraq can't shoot a missile that far or fly a bomber to the US, I assume they would need to use some sort of infiltration. The infiltrator would almost certainly not be a uniformed combatant. While Iraqi's fighting in civilian clothes in Iraq are afforded some protection as guerillas, those fighting in the US would be treated as saboteurs. But sabotage is part of war. The Iraqi government would not be committing a war crime, but the saboteur could be executed if caught.

I think the possible effects of the deaths of either national leader are illuminating. The (probable) death of Saddam Hussein is a cause for joy in Iraq. In the US, all but Bush's most strident opponents would be infuriated if he were killed. I didn't vote for him; don't like him; disagree with most of his policies. If he were assassinated, I would demand that the government of a nation that sponsored it be destroyed.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zero
Too bad NOBODY follows that rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVERY civilized (read: westernized) nation follows that guideline including the US. And you know it.

I don't think the US violated that rule in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Panama, or Grenada. There was carelessness that bordered on violation in Lebannon, and the Christmas bombing of Hanoi was a clear, intentional violation. I think a lot of Americans would have been willing to see Richard Nixon pay for that crime as well as his others. It exposes us to all sorts of unwarranted criticism to this day.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
I don't think the US violated that rule in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Panama, or Grenada. There was carelessness that bordered on violation in Lebannon, and the Christmas bombing of Hanoi was a clear, intentional violation. I think a lot of Americans would have been willing to see Richard Nixon pay for that crime as well as his others. It exposes us to all sorts of unwarranted criticism to this day.

Njorl

It certainly is something new since WWII. I'm not even sure its written down in the Geneva conventions or a UN resolution though. Certainly we didn't follow it in Vietnam.

 

[Njorl]

There were rules added to the Geneva Convention in '46 or '47 about targetting civilians. I wish I could find it, but I just read them a couple weeks ago.

It is considered a violation to:

-Intentionally target civilians. (no explanation necessary)

-Target a civilian area for indiscriminate attack because it has legal targets within it. (In WWII, all sides bombed factory districts in the hopes of getting a lucky hit on one of the factories there. Usually, all they hit were people's houses. Now, you must target specific factories, and have a reasonable chance of hitting it.)

-Position military targets amongst civilians so as to make them immune to attack. (This was to prevent nations from exploiting the first two rules. It was recognized that if nations were able to exploit the conventions for military advantage, that the conventions themselves would be discarded.)

The explanation I listed for the last rule is a big problem for modern conflicts. The rules were written to govern conflicts between nations of similar technological levels, US, UK, France, Germany, USSR, Japan etc. Following the rules of war gives a huge advantage to the technologically superior nation. Some changes were made to protect civilian guerillas from summary judgements, but they do not offset the benefits to the technologically superior combatant.

Njorl

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Monique
So Saddam has every right in the world to bomb the white house when he has intelligence that Bush is inside without facing any procecution because they

Who are "they?"

are at war and Bush is against him? Hypothetical situation, I am just curious.

Yup. such an act is not a war crime. Such an act committed during "peace" (whatever the hell that is) is internationally recognized as grounds for war.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Njorl
I don't think the US violated that rule in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Panama, or Grenada. There was carelessness that bordered on violation in Lebannon, and the Christmas bombing of Hanoi was a clear, intentional violation.

...and, you cite chapter and verse regarding location of military targets in civilian areas in your next post... Hmmmmm.

I think a lot of Americans would have been willing to see Richard Nixon pay for that crime as well as his others. It exposes us to all sorts of unwarranted criticism to this day.

Njorl

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Monique
So Saddam has every right in the world to bomb the white house when he has intelligence that Bush is inside without facing any procecution because they are at war
-----------------
Bystander: Who are "they?"

Reply: "they" are the American government (Bush) and the Iraqi regime (Saddam). Makes sense right? How else could I have put it.. ? Not "we" since the Netherlands wants no part of the war.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
The explanation I listed for the last rule is a big problem for modern conflicts. The rules were written to govern conflicts between nations of similar technological levels, US, UK, France, Germany, USSR, Japan etc. Following the rules of war gives a huge advantage to the technologically superior nation. Some changes were made to protect civilian guerillas from summary judgements, but they do not offset the benefits to the technologically superior combatant.

Njorl

I don't agree, Njorl. In this war in particular, the lengths we went to to avoid civilian casuaties GREATLY reduced our combat effectiveness and greatly INCREASED our own military casualties.

Also, these rules aren't just to protect your enemy's civilians, they are also to protect your own civilians from you. In this war, Saddam's violations greatly increased his own civilian casualties. I don't think you would argue that killing your civilans in order to win a war is a reasonable thing to do. It kinda defeats the point of winning.

In my opinion, technology INCREASES the responsibility of those who have it to protect civilians. In WWII, technology was incompatible with that second part you mentioned. There was no other way to hit a target than to saturate the city block with bombs and eventually hit your target as a matter of probability. Since we now have the means to avoid this, we are expected (required) to do so.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't agree, Njorl. In this war in particular, the lengths we went to to avoid civilian casuaties GREATLY reduced our combat effectiveness and greatly INCREASED our own military casualties.

Also, these rules aren't just to protect your enemy's civilians, they are also to protect your own civilians from you. In this war, Saddam's violations greatly increased his own civilian casualties. I don't think you would argue that killing your civilans in order to win a war is a reasonable thing to do. It kinda defeats the point of winning.

In my opinion, technology INCREASES the responsibility of those who have it to protect civilians. In WWII, technology was incompatible with that second part you mentioned. There was no other way to hit a target than to saturate the city block with bombs and eventually hit your target as a matter of probability. Since we now have the means to avoid this, we are expected (required) to do so.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that obeying the laws of war makes things easier for the technolgically superior nation if they alone obey the laws of war. I'm saying it makes things easier if both sides obey the laws of war. The US would have had an even easier time if the Iraqis had not used civilians for cover. Every step of the war the Iraqis attempted to get the US to kill Iraqi civilians. That is a violation of the Geneva convention.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Bystander
...and, you cite chapter and verse regarding location of military targets in civilian areas in your next post... Hmmmmm.

You are completely vague. What are you saying? Use words. Complete a thought. Communicate.

Njorl

 

[Alias]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but Njorl, work on your diplomacy. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

First get a coherent statement, then blast'em!

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Alias
Can't believe I'm saying this, but Njorl, work on your diplomacy. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

First get a coherent statement, then blast'em!

True.

I might even agree with him...I just can't tell.


Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that obeying the laws of war makes things easier for the technolgically superior nation if they alone obey the laws of war. I'm saying it makes things easier if both sides obey the laws of war. The US would have had an even easier time if the Iraqis had not used civilians for cover. Every step of the war the Iraqis attempted to get the US to kill Iraqi civilians. That is a violation of the Geneva convention.

Njorl

Yeah, you're right. I misunderstood. I agree with that.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Monique
Originally posted by Monique
So Saddam has every right in the world to bomb the white house when he has intelligence that Bush is inside without facing any procecution because they are at war
-----------------
Bystander: Who are "they?"

Reply: "they" are the American government (Bush) and the Iraqi regime (Saddam). Makes sense right? How else could I have put it.. ? Not "we" since the Netherlands wants no part of the war.

Just wanted you to acknowledge that wars are waged between govts. and not individuals as far as the international law game is concerned.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Njorl
You are completely vague. What are you saying? Use words. Complete a thought. Communicate.

Njorl

You indicted Nixon for the Xmas bombing in one post, and in the following cite Geneva regarding the location of military targets in civilian areas; the assignation of risk to civilians in Hanoi was an act of the NV govt. --- end of U.S. culpability for collateral damage. Need I directly call you hypocritical in your application of Geneva conventions? Which I am not, I am asking you to re-examine the information you have presented, and to acknowledge that you have opined re. Nixon without a full application of the information you had available.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Bystander
You indicted Nixon for the Xmas bombing in one post, and in the following cite Geneva regarding the location of military targets in civilian areas; the assignation of risk to civilians in Hanoi was an act of the NV govt. --- end of U.S. culpability for collateral damage. Need I directly call you hypocritical in your application of Geneva conventions? Which I am not, I am asking you to re-examine the information you have presented, and to acknowledge that you have opined re. Nixon without a full application of the information you had available.

Quartering troops within a city, or having factories that produce military materiel within a city is not considered an attempt to make them invulnerable to attack. That would require somethink like barracksing troops in residential homes, or building munitions factories contiguous to hospitals.

The bombing of Hanoi was not directed at specific targets. It was directed at the city as a whole. This is specifically banned by the Geneva convention. You may target factories or barracks, and many of your bombs may miss and kill civilians. That is not a violation. But bombing a city in general, in the hopes of destroying factories or randomly killing soldiers has been a warcrime since 1947. Hanoi was perpetually fogged in at that time of the year. There were no GPS guided bombs.


I had stated, "It is considered a violation to...Target a civilian area for indiscriminate attack because it has legal targets within it."

Njorl

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Back to the subject of this thread...

Originally posted by Monique
I just wonder, isn't there an international law against performing an assassination on political figures? I thought that the US felt strongly against assassinations because of the incidents Marther Luther King, Kennedy, and others?

Then why is the US military trying so desperately to bomb buildings of which they have intelligence that Saddam & regime is staying there? The window of opportunity as it was called of the first bombing of Bagdad was solely intended to kill Saddam and his sons right? I would think that this falls under the chapter of war-crimes, does it not..

I see nothing wrong with the "assassination policy"
AGAINST war criminals and potential murdereres.
I'm not sure about international law about this
sort of stuff. However, is seems very foolish not
to do this if such an action has the potential
to prevent a much wider military action which has
the potential to get civilians and military
personel killed or the lack of such an action which
will allow that person to continue killing, it will
also allow to avert causing a lot of material damage
and wasting lots of resources.

Laws are general directives that are "good" for
most cases but they are not perfect - there are
always exceptions. That's why Kirk would violate
the Prime Directive so many times when it seemed
that not doing so will abviously lead to disaster.
And back to to more "real" examples - had there been
a possibility of capturing one of the terrorists
or one of their connection people before 9/11 - would
it be wrong to torture the man to make him talk ?
Had it been known that the planes were already
captured and were heading for Manhatan, would it
be wrong to shoot them down ?

The "idea" of laws is to protect certain ideas
or ideals if you like. Since there can always be
exceptions, is seems more reasonable to follow
the ideas that the majority of people accepts
rather than the laws. This may not work on a
"private" level because it creates a dangerous
"openning" for crime and because private citizens
have a larger authority "above" them that is there
to take care of such problems, but it is a different
matter when it comes to democratic goverments.

In conclusion, my answer is simply - why not ?

Live long and prosper.