Gaddafi death may be war crime, says International Criminal Court

[Dover]

4. Didn't Bush declare assassinations of gov. leaders acceptable?

No one seemed to flinch at that including the Internation Criminal Court.
That said, it is preferable if it ends the conflict prior to the loss of thousands of lives.

How do they view the death of Saddam Hussein?

----

On edit: Just found this:

In the wake of September 11, President George W. Bush has restored the sordid practices of the CIA by revoking President Ford's 1976 executive order 12333 which banned the CIA from conducting "targeted assassinations". This time, however, the CIA is to receive orders to assassinate foreign leaders directly from the President:

....The Bush administration has concluded that executive orders banning assassination do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action... Bush's directive broadens the class of potential targets beyond bin Laden and his immediate circle of operational planners, and also beyond the present boundaries of the fight in Afghanistan, officials said. But it also holds the potential to target violence more narrowly than its precedents of the past 25 years because previous findings did not permit explicit planning for the death of an individual ... nside the CIA and elsewhere in government,... much of the debate turns on the scope of a targeted killing campaign. How wide should the government draw the circle around bin Laden? And in which countries -- among the 40 or so where al Qaeda is believed to operate -- may such efforts be attempted?...

...The CIA's Directorate of Operations, which runs the clandestine service, is mindful of a traumatizing past in which assassination attempts in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East were blamed on rogue agents when they failed. The agency is determined to leave no room this time for "plausible denial" of responsibility on the part of the president and the agency's top management. That does not mean that operations will be publicly proclaimed, one source said, but that the paper trail inside government must begin undeniably with "the political leadership."

..."The important thing is that the accountability chain is clear," said John C. Gannon, who retired in June as deputy director of central intelligence,... "I would want the president's guidance to be as clear as it could be, including the names of individuals... With explicit authority, he said, "I think the case officers are capable (of targeted killing) and would follow instructions, and would, I think, have the capability of succeeding."

National security officials noted that the White House and at least three executive departments already maintain lists in which terrorists are singled out by name... One view, apparently a minority position but one expressed in private recently by two senior managers in the Directorate of Operations, is that the clandestine service should target not only commanders but also financiers of al Qaeda. "You have to go after the Gucci guys, the guys who write the checks," said one person reflecting that view. It is easier to find financiers, he said, and killing them would have dramatic impact because they are not commonly prepared to die for their cause... Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.)... said fundraisers are legitimate targets for death. "Under traditional terms of war, those who assist belligerents are belligerents," he said....

If Bush has drawn up such a list, it is among the most closely held secrets of government. It could not be learned whether names have been proposed to him by the clandestine service, or whether he has signed orders that would amount to individual death warrants ...

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA declined to comment for this article. But the administration has laid down a public record that offers further evidence of the agency's new authority. (Washington Post, 29 October 2001, emphasis added)

American public opinion is led to believe that a policy of "targeted assassinations" in time of war is necessary to "fight evil" and uphold democracy: "White House officials have said that capturing bin Laden would be highly undesirable and he would be shot on sight rather than captured" (Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2001).


---

AMERICAN LAW AND POLICY ON ASSASSINATIONS OF FOREIGN LEADERS: THE PRACTICALITY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO

Nathan Canestaro*
Abstract: Suspending the ban on assassinations—as established in Executive Order 12333—serves no practical purpose. The Executive Order is not an obstacle to effective prosecution of the War on Terrorism; in fact, its reach is very limited. Although common sense might suggest that “assassination” equates with the targeted killing of a specific individual, the term is in fact a legal term of art with a very narrow definition derived from the Law of War. As a result, Executive Order 12333 only prohibits a very narrow spectrum of attacks in wartime or against clear threats to national security. As the United States has not typically engaged such means to attack “leadership targets” for several decades, publicly rescinding the offer now would grant no more freedom to act and only would serve to undermine the United States’ public diplomacy abroad.

Introduction
In the rush to vengeance after the September 11 attacks, it has been seriously suggested by a number of advocates, including scholars, journalists, and politicians, that the government remove all legal limitations on its use of assassination.1 They contend that the ability to eliminate key targets will be a necessary tool for our nation to prosecute its new war against terrorism.

No standing Federal law criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. In the ab[*PG2]sence of such a statute, only Executive Order 12333 prohibits the act of state-sponsored killing.2 This Order, which was drafted in the mid-1970s in the wake of revelations of government involvement in plots to kill several foreign leaders, has been maintained by every administration since President Ford. In recent years, however, there have been several attempts by Congress to override Executive Order 12333. The most recent of these initiatives is H.R. 19, the “Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001,” proposed in January of this year by Representative Barr of Georgia.3 The findings section of this bill states:

Past Presidents have issued Executive orders which severely limit the use of the military when dealing with potential threats against the United States of America; . . . these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security; present strategy allows the military 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 . . . .4

This paper will argue that any such legislation or other public revocation of the assassination ban would serve no practical purpose and will only injure the United States’ ability to pursue its interests overseas during a time of international crisis. There is little utility to be found in retracting Executive Order 12333, as neither it nor international law pose any serious obstacle to the use of assassination in the scenarios in which the United States would typically employ it. As with any Executive Order, it may be revised, revoked, or temporarily suspended by the President. Furthermore, each successive administration has carved out exceptions to Executive Order 12333 that have narrowed the scope of its restrictions.

..cont'd
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm