Strategic Security
By Denise Best | Related entries in Blogging, LegislationHere’s a topic sure to create some controversy …
Maybe it is time to reconsider the Executive Order 12333 2.11 (search), that forbids the United States government from orchestrating strategic political assassinations of both foreign officials and terrorist leaders.
Yes, Pat Robertson was loudly decried for proposing the Chavez assassination and was ridiculed for being out of his right leaning mind.
Let’s look at the legislative piece though and follow the logic to see what merits may exist with the use of covert activity, in this regard, to more effectively achieve what military efforts are striving to attain at a much higher human cost.
This proposal to repeal the ban on strategic political assassinations does bring out some valid points …
In the latest incarnation of legislation to repeal the ban, Rep. Terry Everett, an Alabama Republican, introduced a bill called the “Terrorist Elimination Act of 2003.� Everett’s legislation asserted that the assassination prohibitions, including Executive Order 12333, “limit the swift, sure and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security.�
It goes on to state that “present strategy allows the military forces to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but prevents our country from designing a limited action which would specifically accomplish that purpose.�
The legislation would lift the ban on the assassination of terrorist leaders who pose a direct threat to national security, yet who have not committed a direct act of terrorism against the U.S. A change in this policy would allow intelligence and military communities to act quickly and decisively to stop terrorists before they are able to inflict harm upon the nation.
In addition to addressing the issue of peacetime strategic assassination, Everett’s legislation lifts the ban on the prohibition of non-military covert actions. The argument for such a change of policy is partially based on the fact that, on numerous occasions, the U.S. military has been ordered to use a military strike in the hope of removing a terrorist leader who committed crimes against the U.S. (That strategy is, in most cases, ineffective, as witness Bill Clinton’s attempt to do in Osama bin Laden with cruise missiles.)
Everett succinctly packaged the motivation behind this portion of the legislation when he stated, “I have a tough time understanding why we can spend tens of millions of dollars on a single effort to kill a terrorist leader of an organization, yet we can’t use covert activity against them.�
Repealing the ban might have the potential to address some of the concerns being expressed regarding costs associated with military spending and still maintain national security efforts.
I know this could be an explosive topic to offer, but read the full article and associated links and fire away … with your opinions!
This entry was posted on Friday, October 28th, 2005 and is filed under Blogging, Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:50 am
One bullet costs a helluva lot less than a four year war, as long as they think through who comes out on top when they carry it out.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Listen, the same reason we shouldn’t condone torture is the same reason we shouldn’t condone assassination.
I mean just look at the word ASS-ASS-I-NATION and you know it’s a dumb idea. ;-)
But there are plenty of shadow groups/mercs out there who could take somebody out if we really wanted to. Happens more often then we would like to admit.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Given how accurate our intelligence sources have proven to be in the past I think it interesting that we would presume to be judge, jury, and executioner based on that data alone…
October 28th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Going with that observation, would you rather the firepower be distributed with the scope of a full military assault or that of a covert operation targeting one versus potentially many?
October 28th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I’m not necessarily against the idea of assassination of proven terrorists, but in addition to defining how much evidence is necessary to justify assassination, I also worry about where we might end up if we open that door, not to mention what other countries might do once we set the precedent.
Perhaps Israel should send an assassin to take out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After all, his comments sound like terrorist threats, don’t they?
Maybe Pat Robertson could hire an assassin to take out Hugo Chavez…of course he’s not a government but he was told to by God, or at least the voices in his head, so why not?
I agree with you that assassinating Saddam Hussein would have been a far less expensive proposition than the fiasco we ended up with, however it would really not have solved anything, as one of his equally bloodthirsty sons would have likely seized power.
Assassination of bin Ladin would have done little other than to remove one of many capable leaders in a widely dispersed and hidden organization. Another would have succeeded him in short order, perhaps not as inspirational, but just as deadly. In addition, he would then become a martyr, and many Moslems around the world would overlook his bloodthirstiness and proclaim his holiness instead.
I think there are probably cases in which assassination could be the best method of resolving an issue, however, I do not trust this administration to know the difference.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
While I like the idea on the surface, and can see some usefulness once in a while, I agree that it would probably do more harm than good most times. The only thing keeping many countries out of total chaos is the existance of a ruthless dictator. If we were to take him, and him alone, out, it would probably lead to a bloodbath among the civilian populations. It’s probably best NOT to pass this legislation, and just let these things “happen” now and then. It’s a lot easier to deny involvement when you don’t have a law on your books condoning it!
October 28th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you, ford4×4 ;)
However, if we do attempt something a clandestine assassination and are discovered, the international shitstorm would rage for years.