What is US government’s official policy on assassinations? Are they considered ok in a state of war? If yes, is there an international law about it?
And what if there has been declaration of war?
AJ bhai....Assassinations were prohibited after the watergate scandal, which was in the mid 70s I believe. So the official policy is that assassinations are not allowed.
The BUsh admin has however developed a series of writeups, which justify just about everything under the sun under certain conditions. ANd according to the current govt, those certain conditions apply since 9/11.
THey dont condemn such assassinations by ISrael either, since they qualify them under the same confusing laws they have come up with.
As far as a declaration of war is concerned, political leaders are off limits, but the term 'enemy combatants' covers many political leaders too.
Since when was the Blind Shiek a leader of the Palestinian people? He was not any more leader than OBL is (hopefully was). A well deserved whacking, whether state sanctioned or not.
US outlawed assassinations when Clinton was President.
Madhnee......SHeikh YAsin wasnt the Palestinian leader, but he could be classified as the opposition leader, and a political leader at that. But everyone would have their own classification of whether he was a political leader or not.
The so called palestinian leader, Arafat (elected president by the way) is also marked for death.
Didnt Ford outlaw assassinations in 75 or 76?
Akif, there are leaders, and then there are leaders. I think Israelis would think twice before whacking Khomenei or Asad (although they easily could) than they would a Spiritual leader whose contribution to the conflict was only to encourage an unlimited supply of suicide bombers.
Yes, Ford outlawed it, but Clinton outlawed assassinations by CIA. That’s why Tenent is so pissed off for being questioned by the 9/11 committees, because he might have broken a few laws, here and there.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
Madhnee......SHeikh YAsin wasnt the Palestinian leader, but he could be classified as the opposition leader, and a political leader at that. But everyone would have their own classification of whether he was a political leader or not.
The so called palestinian leader, Arafat (elected president by the way) is also marked for death.
Didnt Ford outlaw assassinations in 75 or 76?
[/QUOTE]
Arafat is not a target at this time. On the other hand Abdel Aziz Rantissi is.
Arafat has never been an occupation target, they know if he dies today the gap will be filled by HAMAS, and especially since Burguthi in is custody.
UTD, Rantissi has survived once, can be killed tomorrow, but Harka Al-Mqawama (Resistance Movement) remains, and will remain until there is occupation.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
Arafat has never been an occupation target, they know if he dies today the gap will be filled by HAMAS, and especially since Burguthi in is custody.
UTD, Rantissi has survived once, can be killed tomorrow, but Harka Al-Mqawama (Resistance Movement) remains, and will remain until there is occupation.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is occupation to Hamas means all of Israel. Israel is fighting for it's existence while Hamas is not so concerned with a Palestinian state or the Palestinian people but rather the destruction of Israel.
UTD
You have to admit the fact that Sharons govt has views that are just as extreme in nature, if not more, as those of Hamas. SHarons likud party voted against a palestinian state, if you remember. There are criminals on both sides in this street fight, which is why this issue has lingered on for this long. Israel knows the solution to this problem is giving up occupation. Why doesnt it do that? Becuase its simply not interested. Blaming Hamas or PA or Islamic Jihad is more of a joke than anythign else.
BTW, Hamas is Israels own baby.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Israel is fighting for it's existence ...
[/QUOTE]
funny line.. coming in defence of a state that has no declared borders.. and proclaims a "right of return" for every Jew in the whole wide world regardless of where they were born or have been living..
No dear, the problem is not what Hamas things as occupation, but what exists as ground reality. Occupation is occupation, even if you occupy Acre or Haifa it is still occupation, but Israel wants to keep on the occupation of West Bank and Gaza as well, to protect for what they have occupied already. This not how you fight for existence but this is how you fight for extinction of all Palestinians from Israel, a single Jewish state from Gaza to river Jordan.
and about HAMAS taking care of its people, it has done more for the Palestinian people than the IDF and the PA combined. From providing basic health to education and security in Gaza.
Akif, this is pure Israeli propaganda to discredit HAMAS that its their own baby, I have never read anything substantial about this issue.
The US has assasinated people throughout history to say this or that president outlawed assasinations is pure fiction and not based on reality.
Only last year the Americans tracked and killed many people in yemen with missles there was no court no judge just an executioner.
As for the Israeli assasination on sheikh yasin it is clear the israelis let the americans know this was going to happen beforehand, because the israelis cannot do anything so politically motivated as this without americas blessing and bang on time the US came out and rubber stamped the assasination by saying "israel can defend itself by any means"
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
UTD
You have to admit the fact that Sharons govt has views that are just as extreme in nature, if not more, as those of Hamas. SHarons likud party voted against a palestinian state, if you remember. There are criminals on both sides in this street fight, which is why this issue has lingered on for this long. Israel knows the solution to this problem is giving up occupation. Why doesnt it do that? Becuase its simply not interested. Blaming Hamas or PA or Islamic Jihad is more of a joke than anythign else.
BTW, Hamas is Israels own baby.
[/QUOTE]
Sharon doesn't send in kids with bombs strapped to their belts to blow up themselves with the purpose of killing any innocents that might be around. What he does do is attack the terrorists where ever they might be which is extreme compared to Israeli policies of the past. You cannot fairly say that these two actions are the same. One group is going in with the purpose to kill as many bystanders as possible while the other is going in to kill a terrorist(s) with the acceptance that a minimal amount of civilian casualties may also occur, minimal being the key word, operations that have a high risk of mass casualties do not go forward.
Why would Israel give up land to those who want to destroy them? That would just allow a closer launching pad for their attacks. Terror will not be rewarded, after all Israel doesn't want to be seen as “running with their tails between their legs" as many here point out this is what happened when they left Lebanon. You can be assured that when Israel leaves Gaza they will not be running.
Israel has to hang onto every piece of land that it can amass, because the poor buggers have been wandering for centuries in search of the Promised Land!
You telling me that if you were in search a of a gold mine for months and finally found one, would you give it up? I doubt it. Thus Israel is desperate to stay put in order to fulfill the Prophecy.
What a legacy hey. Only fifty odd years old and such career opportunities for new immigrants.
I don't think everyone is operating under the same definition of "assassination." When we talk about policies against "assassination," I think what we really mean is a policy against "poilitically motivated assassinations."
When you are at war with somebody, a soldier killing a soldier is not an assassination. A plane dropping bombs on a members of the enemy is not an assassination. Hunting down and killing a general is not an assassination in the specific sense I think we should be dicussing. Since the US president is also commander in chief of the armed forces, I would hesitate to call his/her murder a "political assassination" if done by an enemy at war with the US.
If the US found out where OBL was and killed him with a missile launched from a predator, I wouldn't call that an assassination that should fall under a general policy against political assassination. Al Qaeda and the US are at war and OBL is the guy calling the shots for Al Qaeda.
Any US policy against assassination should be applicable to targeted killing of leaders of countries or groups who we are not "at war" with. And I don't necessarily mean war declared by Congress because we fight wars all the time without war declarations. In today's world, who is and who is not a legitimate target for killing is a little murky.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Sharon doesn't send in kids with bombs strapped to their belts to blow up themselves with the purpose of killing any innocents that might be around. What he does do is attack the terrorists where ever they might be which is extreme compared to Israeli policies of the past. You cannot fairly say that these two actions are the same. One group is going in with the purpose to kill as many bystanders as possible while the other is going in to kill a terrorist(s) with the acceptance that a minimal amount of civilian casualties may also occur, minimal being the key word, operations that have a high risk of mass casualties do not go forward.
Why would Israel give up land to those who want to destroy them? That would just allow a closer launching pad for their attacks. Terror will not be rewarded, after all Israel doesn't want to be seen as “running with their tails between their legs" as many here point out this is what happened when they left Lebanon. You can be assured that when Israel leaves Gaza they will not be running.
[/QUOTE]
Sharon doesnt need to send in kids, becuase he has billions coming in from the US...and is disproportionately larger in military power compared to the Palestinians. And if you think he doesnt kill innocents, please take a look at the killings of the past 3 years alone. FOr each israeli baby killed, theres a 10 ft headline in every western paper, but for palestinian babies, theres no more than a 2 line mention on page 8. Israeli military strikes kill about 10 bystanders with each specified target. Palestinian bombs do the same. LIke i said before, they are both crimes. Difference is, the cause of Palestinians is legitimate, whereas that of Isarel is illegitimate. Israel is not defending anything. If it was, it would do it within its own borders, the green line at the very least. But Israels history is blood red with nothing but occupation. Israel has simply taken shelter behind the US military might, and US veto. Otherwise, if UN went along its way legitimately, Israel would have been a military target a long time ago, considering the crimes they have committed over the decades.
Israel got that land by being attacked several times and then kicking their attackers ass's back each time. They have given up land for peace with Jordan and Egypt and they won’t give any land up by way of violence. While you may make light of Hamas goal of destroying Israel, Israel does not.
Well some hard data may be useful to the discussion. Palestinians are fighting an occupation - OCCUPATION by a state which has never renounced, in fact has reiterated (if I’m not mistaken), ERETZ ISRAEL. Just so you remember.
"UPDATE
SHARON THE ASSASSIN
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
With the death of Hamas’ Spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin yesterday
Israel has now carried out 327 extrajudicial executions of Palestinians.
Of this number
approxiamately half of the dead, 160, were innocent bystanders including
37 children and 25 women. In the three years since the beginning of the
intifada in
September 2000, Israel has been killing Palestinians at a rate of almost
3 per day.
From 28 September 2000 - 24 March, 2004 the total now stands at 2,936, a
number most likely to reach 3,000 before the end of the month.
During its incessant campaign of violence against the Palestinian people
Israel has killed 541 children (age 17 and under).
Already since the 1st of March 75 Palestinians have been killed by
Israeli forces
189 Palestinian women have been killed since September 2000
87 Palestinians have died due to prevention of medical treatment, 30 of
those were children (20 were newborns), 113 Palestinians have been
killed or died at
checkpoints ."
Ok, so political assassinations in times of peace or undeclared war by president or by congress?] is a no no. But at time of war anything goes?!
Assassinations are not allowed. Some argue that this policy is not in effect during war time. Policies on paper do not always equate to policies in real life. The policy as a whole needs review as the abuse potential is great.