This just out of the NY Times.

Dubya has given the ok on a list of 25 names he wants the CIA to whack whenever they get the chance.

They say this list doesn't go against the law against governmental assassination because these guys are considered "combatants".

The CIA doesn't need to get further permission for anything, sort of a "kill on sight" kind of thing. And the CIA can add names to the list without anyone's approval in the future. In effect, a license to kill anyone without any questions or repercussions from anyone at any time.

I believe we had a problem with this back in the 60's, it was called the Phoenix operation. They had permission to whack anyone they thought needed whacked and they took their job seriously. They did schoolteachers, city officials, all kinds of people you wouldn't normally think needed killed.

I'm willing to bet the name Saddam Hussein won't be on there, somebody needs him to get reelected.

I would be more inclined to vote for him if he were standing over Hussein's lifeless body.

Yeah, technically, we are only prohibited from assassinating foreighn leaders, like Arafat. Bin Ladin and the rest of his ilk, however, are soldiers/combatants and therefore the "G" is free to have them killed. So far, 1/3 of the Al Quaeda leadership has either been killed or imprisoned, this makes me happy as hell, and I can't wait for the terrorist body count to rise.

The idea of not being able to assassinate a leader but being able to declare war, send your army into his territory, resulting in thousands of military and civilian deaths on both sides, and then killing him is pretty screwed anyway. "Combatants" or not, assassination is a better policy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
So far, 1/3 of the Al Quaeda leadership has either been killed or imprisoned,

---

Where did you get your numbers? I have tried to find out how many are with Allah, but I have been unable. Can you convert 1/3 to some hard numbers?

You may ask why I care ... I'm wondering how Allah can keep up with the supply of Virgins. With the unofficial rate of 29 Virgins each, Allah has to be humping to keep up.

Nox

To be honest, I got the numbers off the radio, however, I will work to find other sources to verify this. The 1/3 was the known Al-Quaeda leadership.

I am going to have to agree with nox here. The idea that because we slammed into afganistan, ONE OF MANY AQ strongholds, and the government says that we assassinated 1/3 of the AQ leadership is the most incredible unbelievable pile of gade A USDA Bullshit I have ever heard anyone on totse actually believe. Jesus christ.
We never had that good of intelligence on AQ. If we had, we would have known about the whole hijacking several planes and crashing them into big buildings thing. AQ, like every other terrorist network, is a large honeycomb of cells, each with leadership and several members. Any of these cells can preform incependant acts of agression agasinst the infidels. AQ's strategy is to coordinate attacks with several cells at once, but we are still to this day unable to know 90% of the members of this orginization.
Did Afganistan weaken international terrorism? No.
Will Iraq weaken international terrorism? No
Will the IAO weaken international terrorism? No
With the exception of the latter, these acts will do nothing but to strengthen the resolve of these fuckers. The only way to stop attacks against the US is this: STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL AS IF ISRAEL IS A CHILD!!
Israel can take care of itself. And if it does collapse, then someone's god dropped the ball.

Homer

Whats wrong with assassinations though?

Assassinations are no more morally or politically reprehensible than war and assassinating a dangerous enemy is an astute move.
The only reason I can think is that the govt is scared of repercussions. America can invade Iraq and depose Saddam; Iraq can't do the same to the American administration. America can assassinate Saddam; the Iraquis can retaliate using the same methods and have just the same chance of success.
In the Cold War, botched assassination attempts on Castro must have led to fears that the KGB would retaliate. They were in much less immediate danger fighting the cold war by proxy by arming other groups eg the muhajeen to do the same thing.
It's still a fucking stupid strategy as it's based on expecting the enemy to use the same methods as them.

Given that nobody knows how many people AQ consist of, I find it impossible to believe that anyway except Osama himself knows whether 1/3rd of the leadership are dead. 1/3rd of the known leaders maybe - and lets face it that's pathetic given the extensive bombing Afghanistan has and is recieving.

There is one reason why assasinations are worse than war. War is overt - and everyone knows who is the culprit along with the motive - and it is still morally wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
Assassinations are no more morally or politically reprehensible than war and assassinating a dangerous enemy is an astute move.

---

I agree with the sentiment. However, the days of the "Gentlemen's Wars" are over. Just like the days of charging the machine guns. The entire concept of terror has greatly changed the rules of war. When you had two established governments fighting each other, you could have rules. What we have now are a bunch of organized thugs who hide among non-combatants and scream about the rights of the Geneva Convention.

I wore a uniform. I was readily identifiable as a member of a standing military force. I had an insignia of rank and I was subject to a set of established military rules and regulations.

What is the uniform of AQ? Rank insignia? Rules governing individual and group actions? Command structure?

Since you cannot (nor can anyone else, including AQ) answer these questions, the esoteric concept you espouse (ie prohibition of assassination) is meaningless since only one side adheres to the ideal. The fanaticism of the other side leaves everyone on our side vulnerable. I would very much prefer that things could be different, but we must recognize the nature of the enemy and deal with that enemy accordingly.

Nox

Even I never said assassination wasn't the way to go. I just said that giving the CIA carte blanche to do as it sees fit is NEVER a good idea. The CIA ran drugs for the Triads during the Viet Nam War, they ran drugs for the Contras. Hell, they ran drugs for everyone but me. Whenever you give a governmental entity the authority to police itself the only thing you can be sure of is that no policing will be done...ever.

That is like saying the Internal Affairs department keeps cops honest. Nice thought, just a stupid concept. You can be sure of one thing in the future, the CIA will dust off a librarian or a janitor who they are 100% certain is the new head of Al Qaeda, only to find out later that the person was just Joe Arab, no threat whatsoever. Then you will hear about how they are so sorry they whacked the wrong guy. Then they'll do it again.

Oops. Sorry...again.

And you identify the problem of theory versus practice.

Nox

In many cases assassinations would not accomplish much except remove one leader who will be immediately replaced by someone just as bad or worse. If the U.S government claims the right to assassinate foreign leaders what is to stop foreign governments from claiming that same right?

Al Qaeda is a gang of criminals, they are not professional soldiers and have ZERO rights under the Geneva Convention. I have no problem with assassinating their leaders except that I would prefer to take them alive if feasable. Being struck down by a sniper's bullet or predator drone's missile is to quick and pleasant a death for them.

Is anyone aware of any cases in which the United States government has assassinated a foreign official? I only know of Operation Vengeance when they killed Admiral Yamamoto.

You are opposed ot the CIA assassinating people because they might get "Joe Arab"? Do you really think missiles and artillery batteries kill anyone but Joe?

Yeah, they kill their target and anyone standing next to him.

Did you know:
More British soldiers dies in the Gulf War due to friendly fire than due to hostile fire. Furthermore, most of that friendly fire was American.

There was one occasion where a convoy containing an entire platoon of British Infantry on their way to the warzone to kill Joe Arab was totally annihilated by an American missile. That missile didn't kill any Arabs and neither did the 30 or so ex-soldiers. One assassins bullet would have killed the right target without ANY deaths on our side and a total gangfuck would only result in the death of the assailant at worst.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
You are opposed ot the CIA assassinating people because they might get "Joe Arab"? Do you really think missiles and artillery batteries kill anyone but Joe?

---

Learn to read and retain. I never said I was opposed to assassination.

I said I was opposed to giving the CIA free reign without oversight. Read what I wrote only slower this time.

The CIA have had a free reign for years. They aren't controlled by the President... more the other way around. I mean it is a reasonable theory that they wacked JFK - and why would JFK sanction THAT.

Nox: I hope that you weren't associating my post with espousing the "prohibition of assassination" (couldn't be further from the case; usually I'd consider a well-planned assassination preferable to war) It's just your use of the quote and addressing other issues suggested that you might have misinterpreted the central part of my post, which was simply an explanation of the rationale behind the policy banning assassination of foreign leaders, rather than an endorsement of such views.

---

The problem with the CIA assassinating all and sundry seems to be more a problem with the structure and lack of accountability of the CIA than the principle of assassination.

I guess I am guilty of misreading.

When it comes to the CIA, I have mixed feelings. I have had dealings with them, including being inside CIA HQ twice for meetings.

I do not buy off on the CIA participation on the JFK murder (and certainly don't buy the Warren Commission report- but that's a different topic). But the CIA is definately a different type organization with a "mind of its own".

However, I don't think that the CIA deserves as much credit for 'black hand' assassinations as it is given credit for.

One man's opinion.

Nox

Tell me then, Chuck, why we entered Afghanistan then.