Do we have a license to kill?

In the old James Bond films, Sean Connery played Agent 007. The double-0 meant Bond was one of but a handful of British agents who were licensed to kill. So it would appear is George W. Bush.

According to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, President Bush has directed the CIA to conduct a covert operation to oust Saddam Hussein from power, and to use all available means, including the Special Forces. Adds Woodward, "Such forces would be authorized to kill Hussein if they were acting in self-defense."

Now this may not be a presidential assassination order, but few could fault Saddam for thinking Bush intends to kill him. But when the president's father tried to kill Saddam in Desert Storm, once with a devastating air strike on what turned out to be a civilian air-raid shelter, the Iraqi dictator allegedly reciprocated by trying to assassinate the ex-president in Kuwait in 1993.

For that is what they are inviting by authorizing CIA agents and Special Forces soldiers to kill foreign dictators "in self-defense."

Some of us recall that when President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy put out contracts on Castro, it was the Kennedys who ended up assassinated, not Fidel. And there were reports that only days before he murdered President Kennedy in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald was seen entering the Cuban mission in Mexico City.

In the 1970s, Congress professed outrage that the CIA, under Ike and JFK, may have "terminated with extreme prejudice" Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. But with Saddam in the cross hairs, Congress is happily going along.

Said Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey of the president's CIA directive, "If, in fact, we have an opportunity to make the world safer ... I'm sure it's a wise and prudent thing to do."

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt is also signed on: "It's trying to bring about a change of regime, because they have continued to flout U.N. resolutions and international law. I think it is an appropriate action to take. I hope it succeeds in its quest."

But Israel is violating international law by building settlements on occupied land and has flouted 10 times the number of U.N. resolutions as Saddam. By the Gephardt standard, does Iran have a right to bring about "regime change" in Israel? Would Iran be justified in authorizing Hamas to use "lethal force" on Ariel Sharon?

Where does President Bush get the authority to authorize U.S. forces to kill foreign leaders? And if he has the right to overthrow Iraq's regime for acquiring weapons of mass destruction, does he also have the right to order identical operations against any other "axis-of-evil" nation, such as Iran and North Korea?

And if the president has a right to authorize lethal force to effect regime change in Baghdad, does he have the same rights in Damascus, Havana and Beijing? Exactly what constraints are there on this imperial prerogative of the U.S. president to dictate which regimes shall perish from the earth?

In April, the president gave his reasons for targeting Iraq: "The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develop weapons of mass destruction, and then team up with terrorist organizations so they could blackmail the world. I'm not going to let that happen."

But effecting regime change, like assassinating foreign leaders, is a game more than one can play.

None of this is said in defense of Saddam or Fidel, but it is said in contempt of a Congress that is alone empowered by the Constitution to declare war. Do members of Congress retain even a vague understanding at what is required of them by the oaths they all took?

Sen. John McCain endorses the president's covert strategy but believes an invasion of Iraq may be necessary: "If we can do it on the cheap ... then, that's fine. But we have to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to bring about this regime change."

Well, what is necessary is that the president convince his countrymen that Iraq's regime must be overthrown, and that Congress authorize the president to go to war to overthrow it.

That is the constitutional way, and that way all those who favor a wider war can share in the triumph, and those of us as yet unpersuaded can hold them accountable if it turns into a debacle.

That's our Pat for you. Has to get in a knock on Israel or Jews in every piece. Methinks the lad has issues.

FWIW the President has always had authority to order an assassination. That authority was signed away by President Reagan in an Executive Order, which contains a mechanism for exceptions (which require a Presidential "finding"). It goes without saying (or it should) that this is not a normal or customary spanner in our foreign relations toolkit, but every now and then there is a knothead who is best handled in this way. Don't think heads of state, think proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

The reason the security situation in Northern Ireland is stable is that during the seventies and early eighties Margaret Thatcher had taken the reins off the security service, the secret service and the SAS. The "victims" of those whackings were stone terrorists. Their mothers presumably miss them. I don't. Ditto the "victims" of Israel's uneven revenge on the Munich 1972 terrorists, all of whom (and unfortunately, one innocent) sleep with the fishes.

Reading this piece, one must wonder how Pat would have felt about US agents meeting with enemy nationals who were seeking US support for their plan to whack their head of state -- as happened in 1944.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

Oh yeah --

seems like the sole source on this story is Woodward, whose reporting of Agency matters is always suspect. You may remember his 1990 or so book Veil with an "exclusive interview" with William Casey. That interview never happened, which makes you wonder what else Woodward is making up.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

I see...

It would be better to kill a few tens of thousand of relatively innocent Iraqi's and have maybe a few hundred dead Americans to make Saddam's end more palatable to Pat...

And does Pat really believe the only thing stopping our enemies from assassinating our President is this order? That somehow that makes our enemies play nice?

Pat's been in Washington far too long… The only town where political perception is more real than reality…

Just an observation, which comes at a late hour of the evening, and not to be taken as anything pro or con to this particular discussion...

If the President of the United States can order the assassination of the leader of another sovereign nation, then that nation is not really "sovereign" at all but is rather a subordinate under the United States, in fact if not in deed. Their leaders are become mere "princes" who can live or die at the mercy of the king from America. In short, without need for globalist conspiracies etc., the entire globe really has - already - become a world empire, ruled from Washington D.C.

Something to bear in mind.

Well, what is necessary is that the president convince his countrymen that Iraq's regime must be overthrown, and that Congress authorize the president to go to war to overthrow it.

As a historian Pat should know our first two wars after the ratification of the Constitution were fought without the benefit of an official DOW (the naval Quasi-War with France 1797-1799, and the war with the Barbary States 1803). Neither Adams or Jefferson felt obliged to have an official DOW. Presidents have been engaging in undeclated wars ever since. Moreover Congress already approved Bush taking whatever steps necessary to fight terror and appropriated funds for that purpose which amounts to a DOW.

As far as the American people, they don't need any convincing. The day we invade Iraq Bush will have 90% approval ratings.

Well, taking into account the Relative armed stregnth of the Nations of the world that is a pretty accurate judgement, the half you are missing is the Moral standing that allows such actions to be taken. Like to or not, if the action is unjust we become a pariah in the eyes of the world, which means NO trade, no favors, and a greatly reduced standard of living....

An Assassination, will always be precipitated by a Provocation. The line you are drawing is not crossed until that standard is abandoned.

Ask yourself this:

If Iraq wants to pop a nuke at us, that's called a "weapon of mass destruction". Nevermind that Iraq most likely does not have a nuclear capability.

If the Bush administration wants to pop a nuke at Iraq, that's called "pre-emptive attack". We certainly have the ability to do so.

Now, from the perspective of the outsider, why should one thing - or one country - be considered "good" and the other "bad"?

Hussein is an evil man. There are evil men in America also... but I cannot see how ever wiping them out at cost of many other innocent lives can be something of good conscience.

Fair enough, but you changed the question. GWB wanting Saddam dead made Iraq 'not really "sovereign" at all but is rather a subordinate under the United States'. I disagree with that. Whether there is a moral distinction in the US and Iraqi ownership of WMD is a valid question, but not the same one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.