NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe years ago there was a law allowing governmental bodies to authorize assasinations of the governmental heads.

I feel that that law would be reinstated, we could have taken care of Saddam Hussein without angering the world. I feel that it could have saved us billions of dollars. I feel it would have gone a lot smoother than it is and we could have, along with the intn'l community, sent in the peace keepers to help the Iraqi people out.

(I'm not sure if there was ever a law like that or not but I am pretty sure that there wasn't a law prohibiting it such as there is now.)

You really think that if the US sent in an assasin the rest of the world wouldn't be pissed off?

You really think that if the US sent in an assasin the rest of the world wouldn't be pissed off?

Let's put it this way: Would you rather deal with Kim Jong Il, or the military dictator that arose after Kim Jong Il? No.. Maybe not.. Would you rather deal with Amenid- oh fuck it; That guy, or a pissed of Ayatollah and a rioting Iran? Hmm... Might not work there either... Castro or Raul with an agenda? No...

Ok... I give up... Who would it be a good idea to assassinate?

I believe years ago there was a law allowing governmental bodies to authorize assasinations of the governmental heads.

I feel that that law would be reinstated, we could have taken care of Saddam Hussein without angering the world. I feel that it could have saved us billions of dollars. I feel it would have gone a lot smoother than it is and we could have, along with the intn'l community, sent in the peace keepers to help the Iraqi people out.

(I'm not sure if there was ever a law like that or not but I am pretty sure that there wasn't a law prohibiting it such as there is now.)First off, provide some evidence that such a law ever existed. It's customary international law that the killing of a leader of a foreign country for a political purpose and by treacherous means is illegal.

You really think that if the US sent in an assasin the rest of the world wouldn't be pissed off?

Nope, I didn't say that. However, the world would most likely not have known. We would of been in and out. The world probably would have thought it came from with in the Iraqis. Bottom line: the Iraqi's would have been happy and so would the world. Just my opinion.

We shouldn't have deposed Saddam in the first place. He could have been a brilliant ally in the region.

First off, provide some evidence that such a law ever existed. It's customary international law that the killing of a leader of a foreign country for a political purpose and by treacherous means is illegal.

Not so much "illegal" as an "act of war".

Ok... I give up... Who would it be a good idea to assassinate?Mohammed Mossadeq! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq) No one would miss him! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution)

Not so much "illegal" as an "act of war".Not really. Killing him in an airstrike would be an act of war. Getting his chambermaid to stab him in his sleep would be illegal and an act of war.

Nope, I didn't say that. However, the world would most likely not have known. We would of been in and out. The world probably would have thought it came from with in the Iraqis. Bottom line: the Iraqi's would have been happy and so would the world. Just my opinion.History proves that notion to be naive.

First off, provide some evidence that such a law ever existed. It's customary international law that the killing of a leader of a foreign country for a political purpose and by treacherous means is illegal.

Are you capable of reading the entire thread? I corrected that on the bottom line in parenthesis. That I wasn't sure if there was an actual law regarding that but years ago there was no law prohibiting it either such as there is today.

Word from the wise...before you start running off the mouth please read the entire threads. It seems like some people in NSG only read bits of peices of what is really said. Then they begin to run their mouths. Have a nice day.

Nope, I didn't say that. However, the world would most likely not have known. We would of been in and out. The world probably would have thought it came from with in the Iraqis. Bottom line: the Iraqi's would have been happy and so would the world. Just my opinion.
If the Iraqis quickly found out that they didn't do it... he would have quickly become a ralling point for a very large war.

There's also the morality of the situation, namely that the US has screamed about assisnation in the past so...

We shouldn't have deposed Saddam in the first place. He could have been a brilliant ally in the region.
Er, he WAS a US ally.

Not really. Killing him in an airstrike would be an act of war. Getting his chambermaid to stab him in his sleep would be illegal and an act of war.

I think that once you get to the "act of war" part, the "illegal" part is moot.

I can't wait until they fit the stealth bomber with the airborne tactical laser. Then, if you make the mistake of coming out onto your veranda at night to address a rally, you might get vaporized out of your socks by a beam of light not visible to the naked eye from a plane no one can see (it would be 14 km away).

An airstrike, but really perfidious.

Are you capable of reading the entire thread? I corrected that on the bottom line in parenthesis. That I wasn't sure if there was an actual law regarding that but years ago there was no law prohibiting it either such as there is today.Yes there was. It's called customary international law.

Word from the wise...before you start running off the mouth please read the entire threads. It seems like some people in NSG only read bits of peices of what is really said. Then they begin to run their mouths. Have a nice day.Hehe. Never thought actually looking for stuff to fall back upon if my posts were questioned would be counting against me. Yes, I am aware that I quoted the parenthesis. When I read your post though, it didn't say such a thing and NERVUN hadn't replied yet. Forgive me that I didn't double check what I quoted for your convenience and went off on a search for things to back my statements up with. :)

I think that once you get to the "act of war" part, the "illegal" part is moot.Depends mainly on whether you're on the winning or losing team when the smoke clears, doesn't it ;)

Depends mainly on whether you're on the winning or losing team when the smoke clears, doesn't it ;)

As we know, only the Swiss and the winners write the history.

As we know, only the Swiss and the winners write the history.I'm beginning to get the feeling that the internet changed that rule though :p

If the United States were to attempt to remove a foreign head of state from office (leaving aside what it might do during an actual war), the analysis would differ depending on the method used. If it were done by supporting opposition groups within the foreign country who are seeking to remove the leader by the use of force, what the World Court said in the 1986 case of Nicaragua v. United States would be relevant:

The Court therefore finds that no such general right of intervention, in support of an opposition within another State, exists in contemporary international law. The Court concludes that acts constituting a breach of the customary principle of non-intervention will also, if they directly or indirectly involve the use of force, constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations.3

The Court decided in that case that the United States, by supporting and aiding the "Contras" in their attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, had breached its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.4

A direct assassination attempt by the government of one state against a head of another state would be even more problematical. For example, earlier this year the World Court enunciated a rule protecting the inviolability of a top government official "against any act of authority of another State which would hinder him or her in the performance of his or her duties," even if the official is suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.5 That case involved an arrest warrant issued by Belgian authorities against the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not an assassination attempt. But the principle of the case would extend, a fortiori, to an assassination attempt against a head of state.

From the website: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh88.htm

The USA has not overtly attempted an assassination of a head of state for the last twenty years or so. I don't quite understand the reasoning, as I do not assume that US foreign policy has changed that much. I think that due to international pressure, the US foreign intelligence groups have been trying to operate far more quietly. This probably makes their job that much harder.

That may be one reason why Hussein wasn't simply assassinated. The other reason may be that the current US regime wanted to establish an armed presence in the region for whatever reason. I would suggest petrodollars as a possible reason.

Er, he WAS a US ally.

Only against Iran.

We shouldn't have deposed Saddam in the first place. He could have been a brilliant ally in the region.

yeah, and then you probably would have been complaining that the USA had an ally who killed ten's of thousands of his people.

I believe years ago there was a law allowing governmental bodies to authorize assasinations of the governmental heads.

I feel that that law would be reinstated...Oh let's... that way someone else can assassinate W. and then everyone can point and say, well, there's a law, so it's okay. /sarcasm

Time quickly turns the "us" to "them" and makes the hunter the hunted. Everyone knows to be careful of what you wish.

well that also means whoever in power here could be done too - unintended consequences as it were

I believe years ago there was a law allowing governmental bodies to authorize assasinations of the governmental heads.

I feel that that law would be reinstated, we could have taken care of Saddam Hussein without angering the world. I feel that it could have saved us billions of dollars. I feel it would have gone a lot smoother than it is and we could have, along with the intn'l community, sent in the peace keepers to help the Iraqi people out.

(I'm not sure if there was ever a law like that or not but I am pretty sure that there wasn't a law prohibiting it such as there is now.)

Yes.

But I'm just waiting for that nifty device from that old Star Trek episode which evaporates your enemy at a distance anywhere in the "quadrant".

You really think that if the US sent in an assasin the rest of the world wouldn't be pissed off?

They have done it plenty of times before without too much of a pissing off. Unless it was unjust.

I believe years ago there was a law allowing governmental bodies to authorize assasinations of the governmental heads.

I feel that that law would be reinstated, we could have taken care of Saddam Hussein without angering the world. I feel that it could have saved us billions of dollars. I feel it would have gone a lot smoother than it is and we could have, along with the intn'l community, sent in the peace keepers to help the Iraqi people out.

(I'm not sure if there was ever a law like that or not but I am pretty sure that there wasn't a law prohibiting it such as there is now.)

Two reasons why you don't assassinate Government leaders as a matter of course.

The secondary one is the one that Dubya and Co. are discovering now. If you remove the leader, you've got noone to negotiate surrender with.

The primary one is that it benifits weak nations to allow assassination. No nation in the world would have a prayer if it tried to fight a war against the US. It would be difficult, but not implausible for a government who opposes the US government to train a small band of snipers and bribe some official to get a copy of the President's itinerary. Possibly shoot down Air Force One with an RPG. We want to discourage that sort of thing, so we pretend that it's the worst thing that anyone could possibly do regardless of the consequences, because the consequence we're afraid of is not that we might save the lives of many US soldiers, it's that we might lose a few politicians.

Yes.

But I'm just waiting for that nifty device from that old Star Trek episode which evaporates your enemy at a distance anywhere in the "quadrant".

What about the rifle with the teleporter that lets you shoot people through walls at point blank range.

We shouldn't have deposed Saddam in the first place. He could have been a brilliant ally in the region.

Should have made him a vice-president of Halliburton, with a huge salary and pension and all that. :p

We want to discourage that sort of thing, so we pretend that it's the worst thing that anyone could possibly do regardless of the consequences, because the consequence we're afraid of is not that we might save the lives of many US soldiers, it's that we might lose a few politicians.
Oh noes! How could any nation survive in the face of such a tragedy?!

The reason that no one uses assassinations is because the rulers of the world realized that it is a lot more fun to have other people die for your beliefs than it is to actually have one's own neck out on the line. I, on the other hand, fully support the assassination of any and all world leaders as a way to teach them a bit of caution in whom they are willing to piss on.
Especially Den Mothers. Fucking cub scouts, can't trust 'em an inch.

I believe years ago there was a law allowing governmental bodies to authorize assasinations of the governmental heads.

I feel that that law would be reinstated, we could have taken care of Saddam

And I thought you were talking about Bush... you know, just like Kenny.


Seriously, you can't assassinate people outside US under US law.

only if our head of state can be assassinated as per law ;)