There are a lot of reasons why it would mostly not be a good idea to go around carelessly assassinating foreign heads of state. It's going to generate a LOT of ill will that will make the faked up outrage over Abu Ghraib look like a valentine.
Still, the possibility of such an action has strong moral weight under some circumstances. Under what system of morality would it NOT be superior to kill a few deserving offenders if you could rather than have a full scale war?
Yes, it would be the PR nightmare from hell for US to send a hit squad after a foreign head of state, but being labeled the bad guy might be less bad than, say, letting Iranian mullahs get nuclear weapons.
There's one major legal issue, though: It's illegal under US law for our agents to perform assassinations. As Alan Colmes played the liberal trump card against an apologist for Rev Robertson's remarks about assassinating Hugo Chavez, "You do believe in the rule of law, don't you?"
The relevant law is Executive Order 12333, most specifically Part 2, Section 11: "2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." You have to admit, that's pretty clear.
Thing is, this is merely an executive order, ie something the president made up on his own accord. It is not part of the US Constitution, nor was it even a law passed by Congress.
Therefore, President Bush could and should perfectly well simply rescind that provision what ties our hands behind our backs of his own accord with another executive order.
Plus, even if we don't actually use it, the hanging possibility of assassination COULD conceivably happen to be just the thing to make Kim Jong Il or some Iranian mullahs become more open to reasonable negotiation. OK, so maybe they could calculate that we won't start a wholesale war, but the possibility of US coming after them personally might get their attention.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Rich
Al,
Why do you write like this?
Is it for shock value?
I hope your not serious.
Anyway, I would suggest reading "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins.
2 - Al Barger
Rich, I fail to see what is "shocking" about this proposal, and I assure you that I'm dead serious. I write this particular piece exactly in answer to the hysterical tut-tutting of people who are having fits of what appears to me as utterly, completely unjustified moral fury over even the theoretical concept of killing a bad guy.
3 - lauri wiss
The Executive Order gives deniability to the President if and when such actions occur.
At most, The President will be impeached and jailed by the citizens of this country. However, this action does not resurrect the head of state who was killed.
In my lifetime, the use of the phrase "regime change" has been actively used since President Carter's Administration over Nicaragua.
We already can and have distablized a country's economy with our allies over aparthaid in South Africa.
Funding insurgents and political parties who would agree with American foreign policy was an accepted policy practice especially during the Cold War. "Proxy Wars" have thus been fought since time immortal when loss of life of their citizens was considered not necessary by the dominent foreign states.
Venality,graft, corruption, and the treatment of others from different racial,social,and economic classes as "less than" by a society and its political leaders allows manipulation of economies and politics worldwide.
The realpolitic lesson ignored in top level policy pronouncements by those in favor of head of state asassinations is the that politicians come and go BUT domestic and multinational lobbyists of elite groups, militaries, and senior political aides continue to run the system regardless of a nation- state's political ideology.
So whether killing the leader of an idea,(the use of nonviolence)the leaders of the dissidents of a political party (the "disappeared" in Argentina and elsewhere), or a political head of state DOES NOT GUARANTEE that a project or course of action will stop.It will guarantee an equal action here in the United States.
In one book on the shelves of Borders now, NEMESIS, the thesis statement is Robert Kennedy was murdered by Aristole Onassis and his Arab friends.Ari's friend at the time was a major moneyman for the "terrorrists" in the 70's. The line I read which was chilling to me was that after the Israeli's win over the Arab Coalition, it was felt that a major politician should be killed in America. Is this book correct? I don't know. However,it could be.
Israel bombed a facility that could have become a factory of nuclear weapons. Secret services in this decade identified the scientists,especially those of Pakistan, participating in the transfer of knowledge needed for a nuclear program. Both of these actions slowed the development of nuclear programs in the Middle East.A man working for an import export high-security electronics firm had the paperwork capabiltiy,connections, and being in the right country to provide a key part needed in the manufactoring of a nuclear weapon. Fortunately, he was identified and is now cooperating with American officials. These type of actions work.
On a different note,
what if the people and the politicans of a state agree nuclear power is needed.The possibility of an accident is a willing risk. Do we Americans want other countries intervening, killing our politicians, because other world citizens feel we make the world unsafe for their children?
How do you explain the high increase of international countries having American lobbyists representing their interests before Congress if not to influence policy and economic decisions?
4 - Vidar Hokstad
Considering the high number of failed attempts at assassinating Castro, I don't see why it would act as much of a deterrent.
That aside, the key argument against assassination is that you have no control over what happens next. In a dictatorship it depends on who manages to grab power. That person might very well be worse than the person he replaced.
In a democracy, the lines are clearer and you may be able to make a reasonable assessment about the desirability of new leadership, but an assassination starts smelling really fishy and disregarding the morality of assassinating an elected leader, might still be undesirable because of the potentially extreme backlash if the assassin can be connected to you.
In either case, the potential risk is tremendous, and might even directly cause war or terrorism as retaliation.
While I don't have any strong moral objections to political assassinations in principle, I do consider the above problems significant enough to warrant extreme caution.
Of course, another problem with it for me personally is that I have absolutely no faith that the US government would use them only against people that there's anywhere near a consensus deserves to be toppled, much less killed.
Vidar
5 - jim
Hey, any of you people remember the 10 Commandments??
I just love so-called "Christian" people killing for God. Tell ol' Pat to keep up the good work - I hear Hell still has some openings! (but they are going fast!)
6 - Temple Stark
Too late. Keep up with the news.
7 - Mike
Once again, I argue that repealing that ban on assassinations will lead to other countries instituting policies of assassination of the President of the United States. And what will we be able to do about it? Furthermore, who's to say WE won't change our behavior as a nation if the threat of assassination is hanging over our heads?
Maybe that wouldn't be all bad...
8 - Al Barger
Vidar, "extreme caution" is right. There would be hell to pay. It's more the hanging possibility as a negotiating tactic rather than doing it.
You might get something worse in his place is also a very good argument- unless you're dealing with something completely unacceptable and untenable where rolling the dice looks better than the status quo.
Plus, it's not that easy to just conveniently surgically whack a couple of baddies. How would we even get at Kim Jong Il? Might not be possible other than to absolutely bring in the army and take down the regime.
It's a bad BUNCH of pr if we assassinated a head of state, but I don't see how it would cause them to come after ours. Those what would do such a thing would do it regardless.
Plus, the possibility of losing a couple of our hack politicians is a risk I would be willing to accept. But woe be unto any known relative, associate, business acquaintance, or countryman of those that did it.
Also Jim, I am not a Christian, and even if I were, that invocation of the Ten Commandments is just wrong. It's a dumb thing to keep saying frankly, since absolutely every sentient being knows that the commandment not to kill was set in the middle of a list of capital offenses.
When you throw that argument up, it's like you're trying to say that Yahweh laid out pacifism as the law. That just obviously was not the case. Also, see the book of Joshua and the conquest of the Promised Land.
9 - Bob A. Booey
This is, quite typically I'm afraid, unsophisticated and poorly thought-out.
Think before you write, Senator.
That is all.
10 - Silas Kain
Geesh how many Senators think before they write? Oh, I forgot, they usually have speech writers.
11 - Realist
Hey -- assassination works!
On November 4, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a gunman in central Tel Aviv after attending a rally.
That killed the peace process that was underway.
12 - WTF
Git some... Pat.
Anyone not willing to kill with their own hands, shouldn't go around asking others to do it for them.
It's called chickenshit.
13 - Rich
Has anyone read this book?
"Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins.
It would inlighten people on this subject and put into perspective our foreign policy tactics over the past decades.
I would strongly recomend this book to our fellow BC politicos.
I want to write a blog article synopsis of the book, but don't have the time.
Maybe in the near future.
--Rich
14 - Liberal
"Under what system of morality would it NOT be superior to kill a few deserving offenders if you could rather than have a full scale war?"
How about when the offender happens to be you?
15 - Al Barger
What exactly do you mean by that, Liberal? I'm not understanding you.
16 - Liberal
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemoller
17 - Rich
Hey wasn't Iraq a secular State before we invaded it?
And what is it going to be under Iraq's new draft constitution, an Islamic Republic?
Isn't Iran an Islamic Republic?
We are sacraficing our soldiers to build Islamic Republics?
18 - Al Barger
Jumpin' Jebus there Liberal. That quote in comment 16 is SO inappropriate to the context. What, if the cops kill a bankrobber or kidnapper, then I'm next? It's a slippery slope from assassinating Kim Jong Il to coming after little Liberal you? As Jimmy would say during one of his South Park motivational comedy routines, I mean, c'mon.
19 - Liberal
OK, Al. Where do you draw the line between a dictator that is ok to assassinate and one who is not? We don't like this guy's human rights record, so he's gone. We don't like this one's economics, so he's gone. We don't like this one's religion...
20 - Al Barger
Liberal, in all things in life there are judgement calls. I appreciate that we should be really skeptical of going around whacking people, but I think it's not that difficult to establish some reasonable idea of where it would be acceptable. Not over economics or we "don't like" their religion, but murdering thugs supplying, harboring or just playing footsie with terrorists. Mass murdering thugs can wake up dead.
Plus, again, give US an even half viable alternative strategy. What'll we do instead?
21 - sammy
As long as assassinations are regarded as necessary they will always have fascination. When they are looked upon as vulgar, they will cease to be considered.
22 - lauri wiss
Gentleman,
are you equally able to see assasinations of heads and boards of directors of multinational corporations and NGO's?
Why? Why not?
23 - Les Slater
What right does the U.S. have to interfere with any country?
This is not limited to assassinations of heads of state, or other so-called enemies.
The U.S. free-trade policy is anything but free trade. The U.S. subsidizes whomever it pleases, whenever it pleases, at the same forcing underdeveloped countries to accept products from the U.S. without hindrance or tariff. It pushes governments to privatize all of its resources.
The U.S. subverts democracies that don’t go along with these policies.
These policies are being more and more resisted, principally by workers and farmers (peasant) in those countries. Governments have tried to suppress the resistance, or sometimes, give lip service. In Latin America may a president has been ousted by an enraged population, primarily, workers, farmers and the indigenous.
At times a leader comes along, that to some extent, manages to hold off the wolves. These are the ones that are hated by the various U.S. administrations.
Why? The flow of wealth is primarily from the undeveloped world to the developed world. As the economies of the developed world sink deeper into crisis, this cash flow becomes critical and central. This is why the U.S. is ratcheting up the invectives and threats to Chavez and Castro. They are examples that the U.S. does not want to see spread. They are spreading and this is bringing the threat of U.S. going to war against most of Latin America closer. The military buildups in counties like Colombia have nothing to do with drug trade.
The assassination threats have to be seen in this context. No executive order has ever, or will ever, get in the way of this.
In the Middle East the issue is primarily energy supplies. U.S. policy is designed to have as many countries beholden to U.S. policy, and be stable enough to deliver. Democracy is no criterion.
As far as nuclear power is concerned, all developing countries have a right to it without interference. In the case of Iran, they have every reason to believe that if they depended on foreign supply of fuel, they would be at the mercy of countries that want to destroy them.
This is also true of North Korea. Also, both Iran and North Korea have a right to nuclear weapons. Both countries have defined by the Bush administration to be part of the axis of evil. This means that they are in the gun sights of the mightiest military power on the face of the earth. Do we have a right to demand that they surrender? Lebanon did surrender and Syria is taking the brunt of the pressure at the moment.
These policies of preventing undeveloped countries from developing are costing many millions of lives annually. Is it surprising that there are those that seek to strike America with as much harm as they can?
None of this will change until the imperialist arrogance of the U.S. is defeated. This will not be able to stand if the majority of us understand who are our enemies and who are our allies.
The powers, federal, state and local, Republican and Democrat, that let New Orleans suffer untold destruction and grief are not our allies or friends.
The calls for assassinations are thoroughly reactionary!
24 - Bob A. Booey
Lee, you're gonna get a lot of flak for what you said.
NO ONE deserves nuclear weapons, certainly not Iran and North Korea. It's the hypocrisy of nuclear-armed states that makes proliferation possible and motivated.
That is all.
25 - Les Slater
“NO ONE deserves nuclear weapons, certainly not Iran and North Korea. It's the hypocrisy of nuclear-armed states that makes proliferation possible and motivated.”
The problem is that the U.S. has them, used them against civilian populations, and continues to threaten to use them.
If the U.S. unilaterally disarms and stops threatening and attacking the rest of the world, then, but not before then, can we start talking about disarming the rest of the world.
To do otherwise is reactionary hypocrisy.