The President’s oath of office (and that of virtually everyone in the executive branch) calls for him to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ To accomplish this task the Presidents have been given a wide range of tools that run across the complete range of political, economic, legal and military means. In fact, the last twelve Presidents (since Truman) have had the ability to destroy large segments of humanity in order to ensure the survival of the Constitution and the nation it created and governs.
What has that got to do with the events of the day? Well, there seems to be a bit of angst over the issue of whether the US Government, specifically the CIA, should have been considering assassinating Usama bin Laden and other key members of al Qaeda.
The relevant law is a neat little piece of prose called ‘Executive Order 12333, as amended.’ The ‘as amended’ part is important as the Executive Order, first issued by President Reagan in on 4 December 1981, has been amended several times to keep it current. The Executive Order is unclassified and can be found on line. Literally, and I do mean literally, every member of the US Government, uniformed or civilian, who has been in any way associated with intelligence operations, collection or handling or processing receives training on the contents of the Executive Order.
The Executive Order states the specific policies that govern how the US will, and will not, conduct intelligence activities, in the broadest sense. It was drafted to tie together a series of loosely knit rules that had accumulated over the previous three decades and, in particular, stated firmly the policies of the US Government in regard to certain gray areas that had been of concern during the various Congressional hearings in the 1970s into intelligence community activities. One of the specific issues was assassination. Simply put, assassination is not allowed. (Executive Order 11905, signed out by President Ford in February of 1976 was the first Executive Order to specifically forbid assassination). The pertinent section of Executive Order 12333 – 2.11 – states:
“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
Most of you are probably aware of the nuances of the law and will respond that there is an obvious way around this: this is an Executive Order and so it can be superceded by another Executive Order. Any President who wanted to have someone assassinated could simply sign a special Executive Order temporarily suspending or in some other way negating 12333, and then order the assassination. Technically, it is correct that any Executive Order can be suspended at will by a President, and every one of them has done so from time to time. The President can even do it secretly.
But, is it right?
Frankly, the current media and Congressional swirl over the CIA ‘plan’ to assassinate Usama bin Laden is, at best, bad farce, and misses the more important point. Are the people making this statement asserting that the President and the CIA should not have been trying to kill Usama bin Laden? Should the US be conducting this war with the proviso that if we do find them we shouldn’t drop a bomb on them? Killing our enemies in time of war (call it assassination if you wish) isn’t normally done with poisoned needles on the ends of umbrellas. It is, in fact, more likely to be a guided missile or some other precision weapon. The question we need to ask is there any meaningful use of the word ‘assassination’ in regard to one’s enemies during a hot war? Should the allies have deferred from bombing or shelling Berlin because of concern that Hitler or his ministers or members of the general staff might be killed (assassinated?)
This is not an argument for the President to begin to assassinate his opposition. God forbid. Executive Order 12333 is a sound document. But, the point of the ban on assassination centered (and centers) on the use of this activity to affect massive political change during the Cold War or, subsequently, without resorting to open conflict. In short, as in a wide range of Hollywood movies, a head of state or senior politician or head of some political movement is killed (assassinated) in order to bring about substantive political change. It is rightly considered a bad idea. Such considerations change once the US has gone to war. We are publicly committed not to simply bringing about political change vis-à-vis al Qaeda, we are trying to eliminate al Qaeda. We don’t want to rehabilitate the organization and turn it into a charity. We want to destroy it for all time. It is worth remembering that there were editorials from mainstream writers shortly after September 11th that said that the President would be justified in using nuclear weapons to eliminate al Qaeda’s threat to the US. But somehow trying to specifically kill Usama bin Laden and his lieutenants is wrong?
The fact is that the decision was made publicly and discussed publicly at the beginning of this war. Usama bin Laden was clearly and publicly targeted when US and allied forces went into Tora Bora. (Look up ‘the Battle of Tora Bora’ on line and check US intentions.) Similarly, during the early stages of OIF the USAF dropped bombs on what were thought to be Saddam’s bunkers. Reuters reported on March 28, 2003 that a 2000lb ‘bunker buster’ was dropped on Saddam’s bunker. Apparently, the coalition was trying to kill Saddam. I’m not sure why else we would have been bombing his bunker.
Obviously, this was clearly and simply justified as he was the centerpiece of all command and control in Iraq. Any argument that this was ‘assassination’ must have been put to bed fairly early and the bombs were dropped – just as they had been at Tora Bora.
If the CIA had a plan to track down and kill Usama bin Laden and his deputies, and they were unable to execute it because of lack of enough detailed intelligence, that is one thing. On the other hand, if the plan was not executed because someone thought it was the wrong thing to do, that is quite another. In such a case, we would have to ask exactly what those who were responsible for defending the country and Constitution were doing with their time? Do we really want the folks at CIA to NOT have a plan to kill our enemies after we have been attacked and are engaged in a hot war?
Perhaps this entire discussion can be distilled into a debate on the use of the word ‘assassinate.’ But, in a time of a shooting war is there any meaningful difference between killing the enemy and assassinating the enemy? A paper prepared for Congress shortly after this war began opined that one of the differences between assassination and other acts of violence is that assassination is for purely political purposes. But war is a purely political event. The textbook definition of war is that it is ‘an extension of political policy by other means.’
Are the wags engaged in this debate trying to further US efforts to eliminate the threats to the US? Or is this an effort to make political hay not only at the expense of political enemies, but also at the expense of those trying to defend the nation? It is worth noting that Senators and Representatives also take an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ Our Congressmen and Senators need to put this issue behind them and get back to their real business.
What has that got to do with the events of the day? Well, there seems to be a bit of angst over the issue of whether the US Government, specifically the CIA, should have been considering assassinating Usama bin Laden and other key members of al Qaeda.
The relevant law is a neat little piece of prose called ‘Executive Order 12333, as amended.’ The ‘as amended’ part is important as the Executive Order, first issued by President Reagan in on 4 December 1981, has been amended several times to keep it current. The Executive Order is unclassified and can be found on line. Literally, and I do mean literally, every member of the US Government, uniformed or civilian, who has been in any way associated with intelligence operations, collection or handling or processing receives training on the contents of the Executive Order.
The Executive Order states the specific policies that govern how the US will, and will not, conduct intelligence activities, in the broadest sense. It was drafted to tie together a series of loosely knit rules that had accumulated over the previous three decades and, in particular, stated firmly the policies of the US Government in regard to certain gray areas that had been of concern during the various Congressional hearings in the 1970s into intelligence community activities. One of the specific issues was assassination. Simply put, assassination is not allowed. (Executive Order 11905, signed out by President Ford in February of 1976 was the first Executive Order to specifically forbid assassination). The pertinent section of Executive Order 12333 – 2.11 – states:
“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
Most of you are probably aware of the nuances of the law and will respond that there is an obvious way around this: this is an Executive Order and so it can be superceded by another Executive Order. Any President who wanted to have someone assassinated could simply sign a special Executive Order temporarily suspending or in some other way negating 12333, and then order the assassination. Technically, it is correct that any Executive Order can be suspended at will by a President, and every one of them has done so from time to time. The President can even do it secretly.
But, is it right?
Frankly, the current media and Congressional swirl over the CIA ‘plan’ to assassinate Usama bin Laden is, at best, bad farce, and misses the more important point. Are the people making this statement asserting that the President and the CIA should not have been trying to kill Usama bin Laden? Should the US be conducting this war with the proviso that if we do find them we shouldn’t drop a bomb on them? Killing our enemies in time of war (call it assassination if you wish) isn’t normally done with poisoned needles on the ends of umbrellas. It is, in fact, more likely to be a guided missile or some other precision weapon. The question we need to ask is there any meaningful use of the word ‘assassination’ in regard to one’s enemies during a hot war? Should the allies have deferred from bombing or shelling Berlin because of concern that Hitler or his ministers or members of the general staff might be killed (assassinated?)
This is not an argument for the President to begin to assassinate his opposition. God forbid. Executive Order 12333 is a sound document. But, the point of the ban on assassination centered (and centers) on the use of this activity to affect massive political change during the Cold War or, subsequently, without resorting to open conflict. In short, as in a wide range of Hollywood movies, a head of state or senior politician or head of some political movement is killed (assassinated) in order to bring about substantive political change. It is rightly considered a bad idea. Such considerations change once the US has gone to war. We are publicly committed not to simply bringing about political change vis-à-vis al Qaeda, we are trying to eliminate al Qaeda. We don’t want to rehabilitate the organization and turn it into a charity. We want to destroy it for all time. It is worth remembering that there were editorials from mainstream writers shortly after September 11th that said that the President would be justified in using nuclear weapons to eliminate al Qaeda’s threat to the US. But somehow trying to specifically kill Usama bin Laden and his lieutenants is wrong?
The fact is that the decision was made publicly and discussed publicly at the beginning of this war. Usama bin Laden was clearly and publicly targeted when US and allied forces went into Tora Bora. (Look up ‘the Battle of Tora Bora’ on line and check US intentions.) Similarly, during the early stages of OIF the USAF dropped bombs on what were thought to be Saddam’s bunkers. Reuters reported on March 28, 2003 that a 2000lb ‘bunker buster’ was dropped on Saddam’s bunker. Apparently, the coalition was trying to kill Saddam. I’m not sure why else we would have been bombing his bunker.
Obviously, this was clearly and simply justified as he was the centerpiece of all command and control in Iraq. Any argument that this was ‘assassination’ must have been put to bed fairly early and the bombs were dropped – just as they had been at Tora Bora.
If the CIA had a plan to track down and kill Usama bin Laden and his deputies, and they were unable to execute it because of lack of enough detailed intelligence, that is one thing. On the other hand, if the plan was not executed because someone thought it was the wrong thing to do, that is quite another. In such a case, we would have to ask exactly what those who were responsible for defending the country and Constitution were doing with their time? Do we really want the folks at CIA to NOT have a plan to kill our enemies after we have been attacked and are engaged in a hot war?
Perhaps this entire discussion can be distilled into a debate on the use of the word ‘assassinate.’ But, in a time of a shooting war is there any meaningful difference between killing the enemy and assassinating the enemy? A paper prepared for Congress shortly after this war began opined that one of the differences between assassination and other acts of violence is that assassination is for purely political purposes. But war is a purely political event. The textbook definition of war is that it is ‘an extension of political policy by other means.’
Are the wags engaged in this debate trying to further US efforts to eliminate the threats to the US? Or is this an effort to make political hay not only at the expense of political enemies, but also at the expense of those trying to defend the nation? It is worth noting that Senators and Representatives also take an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ Our Congressmen and Senators need to put this issue behind them and get back to their real business.
No comments:
Post a Comment