The US is considering lifting the ban on its involvement in assasinations.
- Thread starter Josh
- Start date
<< Are you the news guy now or what? >>
Are you the guy who asks if i'm the news guy now or what?
What source is MSNBC using?
BTW, VP said they are "not ruling out the possibility" in this Sunday interview with NBC.
BTW, VP said they are "not ruling out the possibility" in this Sunday interview with NBC.
i would imagine that if the government did lift this ban, they probably won't advertise it. they'll just do it, and act on it. otherwise we'd be openly inviting our own presidents to be assassinated... it's very important to disbelieve almost everything you see on the news in wartime. it's posturing, it's acting, and it's done to manipulate the enemy as well as pacify the local population...
-syf3r.
-syf3r.
The "BAN' on assassinations was more or less a presidential order signed in as I recall by Carter (though I could very well be wrong and it was another Pres.). All that has to be done to lift it is for Bush to sign it OUT. This may not be a very clear or concise explanation, but basically what I'm saying is congress had nothing to do with it, though I would think bush will ask, or has asked congress to support him on lifting the ban.
EDIT: It was Pres Ford..
EDIT: It was Pres Ford..
Actually, if you look into it, what this enables them to do (at least what they'll advertise) is to go into a given country and with a special force and target one particular person. As it stands now, we are not "legally" able to say, send in a Delta Force to take out Bin Laden, this would enable that kind of mission........."Legally" 
<< i would imagine that if the government did lift this ban, they probably won't advertise it. they'll just do it, and act on it. otherwise we'd be openly inviting our own presidents to be assassinated... >>
Every President in recent times has had some assasination attempt made on their life...
exactly... it essentially enables them to go in and perform black operations, assassinations, and to topple governments. it's not so much a "legal" thing, but more of a secret-handshake, wink-wink, "we're with you" sort of thing in terms of congress knowing about it...
syf3r.
syf3r.
Unfortunately, over 5,500 had to die before the bleeding heart politicians would reconsider it. The right wing normally favored it.
A very volatile subject indeed.
A very volatile subject indeed.
ragingbitch... yes, i know this, and i agree with you... however, if we were to openly say that we're now in the business of killing off world leaders who don't fit into our particular schema for world order, we'd be opening ourselves up to a 747 a week trying to hit the whitehouse... i understand your point, but we're talking about a whole different scale here...
syf3r.
syf3r.
The "BAN' on assassinations was more or less a presidential order signed in as I recall by Carter
I believe Ford signed it, believe it or not. 1976. Carter took office in '77.
A most powerful tool if used correctly.
I believe Ford signed it, believe it or not. 1976. Carter took office in '77.
A most powerful tool if used correctly.
it was signed by Gerald Ford, however this ban really didn't do much, if we needed someone assasinated, we would just have the British do it.
You are right, it was ford.
Altering Assassination Ban Might Increase Pressure on Saddam Hussein, Robb Says
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 1998; Page A22
Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) said yesterday that if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein remains in power after a military assault and continues to defy the United Nations, the United States should consider changing an executive order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders.
Robb would not specify how he would change the order, saying that he raised the issue to increase pressure on Saddam Hussein and to make him feel less secure.
"I'm simply trying to extend the discussion so it becomes clear to him that it's not simply a matter of, we're going to carry out one strike and if that doesn't work . . . we'll do the same thing again," Robb said. "There are other means to accomplish the objective."
Robb said the United States "should consider the possible modification or interpretation" of the order as a way to unnerve the Iraqi president. "He ought not to be able to sleep comforted by the fact that a law in the United States specifically prevents targeting him," Robb said.
The executive order prohibits U.S. government employees, or anyone acting on their behalf, from engaging in or conspiring to engage in an assassination. The order was first signed in 1976 by then-President Gerald R. Ford and would have to be modified by President Clinton.
P.J. Crowley, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the United States is not considering a change in the executive order.
"We do not think this current situation is about removing Saddam Hussein from power, but simply about dealing with the threat posed by his program of weapons of mass destruction," Crowley said. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power would take a significant ground force and require us to occupy Iraq. We do not feel that the risk is warranted."
Robb said that he wasn't suggesting a plan to assassinate Saddam Hussein and that the "basic prohibition against assassination is sound."
"I am talking about removing the comfort quotient that he currently enjoys in believing that he is personally immune from attack or the consequences of attack," Robb said. "He needs to understand that it's not one strike, one whack, one application of force and he wins."
Several military and political analysts said changing the executive order would be counterproductive. Richard K. Betts, a professor of political science at Columbia University and director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said repealing the order would likely make Saddam Hussein even more defiant.
"It sort of makes it a matter of honor for him to show that he's not intimidated, that he can't be scared by these kinds of threats," Betts said. "If he does cave in and surrender, it shows that he's scared and that the United States can push him around. . . . Why give us the satisfaction of backing down in the face of a threat?"
Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said lifting the order would "bring us down to his level" and violate "international norms."
Korb also said he did not believe Saddam Hussein would feel more pressure if the order were changed.
"I don't think he believes we follow our own executive orders to begin with," Korb said. "I think he's paranoid about people coming to get him."
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey told a House committee last week that assassinating the Iraqi president would be ill-advised. Woolsey said that it would be "impractical and destructive of much of what we try to stand for in the world."
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
Altering Assassination Ban Might Increase Pressure on Saddam Hussein, Robb Says
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 1998; Page A22
Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) said yesterday that if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein remains in power after a military assault and continues to defy the United Nations, the United States should consider changing an executive order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders.
Robb would not specify how he would change the order, saying that he raised the issue to increase pressure on Saddam Hussein and to make him feel less secure.
"I'm simply trying to extend the discussion so it becomes clear to him that it's not simply a matter of, we're going to carry out one strike and if that doesn't work . . . we'll do the same thing again," Robb said. "There are other means to accomplish the objective."
Robb said the United States "should consider the possible modification or interpretation" of the order as a way to unnerve the Iraqi president. "He ought not to be able to sleep comforted by the fact that a law in the United States specifically prevents targeting him," Robb said.
The executive order prohibits U.S. government employees, or anyone acting on their behalf, from engaging in or conspiring to engage in an assassination. The order was first signed in 1976 by then-President Gerald R. Ford and would have to be modified by President Clinton.
P.J. Crowley, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the United States is not considering a change in the executive order.
"We do not think this current situation is about removing Saddam Hussein from power, but simply about dealing with the threat posed by his program of weapons of mass destruction," Crowley said. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power would take a significant ground force and require us to occupy Iraq. We do not feel that the risk is warranted."
Robb said that he wasn't suggesting a plan to assassinate Saddam Hussein and that the "basic prohibition against assassination is sound."
"I am talking about removing the comfort quotient that he currently enjoys in believing that he is personally immune from attack or the consequences of attack," Robb said. "He needs to understand that it's not one strike, one whack, one application of force and he wins."
Several military and political analysts said changing the executive order would be counterproductive. Richard K. Betts, a professor of political science at Columbia University and director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said repealing the order would likely make Saddam Hussein even more defiant.
"It sort of makes it a matter of honor for him to show that he's not intimidated, that he can't be scared by these kinds of threats," Betts said. "If he does cave in and surrender, it shows that he's scared and that the United States can push him around. . . . Why give us the satisfaction of backing down in the face of a threat?"
Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said lifting the order would "bring us down to his level" and violate "international norms."
Korb also said he did not believe Saddam Hussein would feel more pressure if the order were changed.
"I don't think he believes we follow our own executive orders to begin with," Korb said. "I think he's paranoid about people coming to get him."
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey told a House committee last week that assassinating the Iraqi president would be ill-advised. Woolsey said that it would be "impractical and destructive of much of what we try to stand for in the world."
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
<< it was signed by Gerald Ford, however this ban really didn't do much, if we needed someone assasinated, we would just have the British do it. >>
LOL, or get the CIA and deny the whole thing.
<< Unfortunately, over 5,500 had to die before the bleeding heart politicians would reconsider it. The right wing normally favored it. >>
And they've been doing a lot of training. Where is Eric Rudolph these days, anyway?
I don't think we need to change it. I forget who, but a guy on the news a few days ago said that the rule was moot if we declare war. Then the leader is just another soldier and we can bypass the rule.
I could be wrong, but that's what I heard.
I could be wrong, but that's what I heard.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter