...consisted of dropping a big bomb w/ the specific intent of dropping it on the Iraqi president's head. Is it just me, or is that attempted assassination of a foreign leader, something the US government supposedly has a policy against?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Having a policy and actually implementing it are two different things.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, could be like the case of the .50 cal machine gun, it isn't to be used against people, but the belt buckles they are wearing, well, that is just different. Maybe they were trying to get SH, just his paperwork, with 40 TLAMs.....
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
What is the exact wording of that limitation on assassination of heads of state, really? Does it apply in wartime as well?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I caught a bit of this discussion on CNN, and I think they said that the policy doesn't apply during wartime.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Besides, Bush can lift the Executive Order anytime he so chooses.
And I think I was watching CNN at the same time as Topher. There are no limits on attacking foreign leaders if you're at war with them. Of course, it could be argued that this isn't really a "war" (I don't think we've actually been at war with anyone since Korea, and, er, we're still at war with them).
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Bush is too much of a pansy to declare war.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
By that definition, the last non-pansy presidents we had were Truman & FDR.
Works for me Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't thik we ever declared war in Korea, either. I think WW2 was the last official war the US was in.
And Executive Order 12333 says "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.". Nothing about a difference between war- and peacetime.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If I remember right doesn't Congress have to declare war, the president can send troops in to combat, but an actual war is a congrssional action.
I am still wondering if the thin red line exists, I would both hate and love to see them use the WsMD. To have the stuff used would show that he hid it well, but the death toll makes me shudder.
If you were a power hungry lunatic that once had these weapons, and used them, saw their effectiveness, would you really get rid of them? I wouldn't, I'd hide them all over the country, and, since I care for my people so much, in their basements, closets, pantries, and what not, the UN wouldn't look in the commoners homes, or those of the regular officers and higher enlisted men in the military. Hundreds, or thousands, of places the UN wouldn't look with 'violating' peoples rights.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The thrid bird they left out, the stoned forward controller calling in an airstrike....
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I am now wondering if the Minsiter of Info is really going to take reporters out to the airport, like he said he might, in a couple of hours.
I can see the picture now: Iraq says they are kicking the coalitions ass, while in reality losing, then, when there are enough coalition forces in Bagdad they will use the WsMD, blaming it on the 'criminals' that they are trying to say are losing. It isn't a case of when forces frist cross the line, but when enough forces are in the CEP.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Maybe he's going out to surrender, get out while he still can?
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)