Taking a page from Israeli military protocols

June 14, 2006 at 12:35 am (The United States)

Protocols. Hehehehehehe. Get it?

I think The United States need a small shift in operational doctrine. Executive Order 11905 (promulgated by President Gerald Ford), Section 5 (“Restrictions on Intelligence Activities”), point (g), says, “Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”

Executive Order 12333 (promulgated by President Ronald Reagan), 2.11 (“Prohibition on Assassination”), says, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” The next section, 2.12 (“Indirect Participation”) applies to this and previous rules in Section 2: “No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”

CNN, of all places, has this to say about these orders:

White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence “finding” is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists.

Nevertheless, I think it is time to reassess these prohibitions. I don’t think we should repeal them entirely. We should institute a disclaimer. Something that says there will be no assassinations unless one is required in interest of national security due to a leader’s pivotal role in activities against The United States, their people, their armed forces, and their interests. This would qualify, potentially, Irani President Mahmoud Ahamdinezhad and perhaps Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but not The Queen or (so far) the President of France.

Sometimes, the best thing is to take someone out. Like az-Zarqawi. We shouldn’t be bogged down by unnecessary rules. However, the quote by CNN does imply that effectively The United States can and will assassinate anyone as long as certain requirements are met (such as that The United States is at war).

Thoughts?

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. Wickedpinto said,

    All of those statements are nullified without further action based on one specific thing.

    A “time of War” does not need to be authorized by congress. A “time of war” can be defined by an enemy who engages in acts of war(defined in geneva) so any foreign leader who engages in an act of war (like kadhaffi) has in fact declared war on the US, and the US without engaging in full politicaly supported war, may respond in the hopes of rejecting war, in exchange for a specific and immediate outcome (like targeting all of the places that a rotten son of a bitch might be living.)

    Granted this isn’t listed in the “constitution” but according to the National Security act, and it’s most recent legislative ammendments in 1952, allows the President of the United States of America” to engage in limited military action for the purposes of protecting the national, and security interests of the United States, in the stead of congress for as long as 90 days, with monthly review by various committee’s or other conferences (I forget which ones.)

    So, all of the executive orders are a statement on “policy” meaning that “if we thing a bad guy is gonna be a real badguy, then we can’t kill him” but if a bad guy acts like a badguy, the president can act in the absense of a declaration of congress, until such time that a political resolution is reached.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I remember this part of “executive war” from the MC days, and if you like fact based fiction, Tom Clancies “Clear and Present Danger.”

    Basicaly, if there is an act of war committed by a foreign power, the President can wage a war with almost complete impunity for up to 90 days (depending on funding) until the congress finds their balls and declares, or denies it.

  2. Wickedpinto said,

    Protocols. Hehehehehehe. Get it?

    And yeah I do get it. I wonder how many who haven’t realized that anti-semitism, and anti-christian beliefs are REALLY the driving forces behind the most horrible legacy of the 20th century?

    The US did not go to war with a single nation that did not use religion, and the jews specificaly as bully boys throughout the entirety of the 20th century.

    A bitch of a fact ain’t it?

  3. Muslihoon said,

    Thanks for the posts! The explanations explain a lot.

    About anti-Semitism and anti-Christianity: sad but true. It’s almost as if we ended the Crusades way back then but they still think they’re going on.

    I always appreciate your input, Wicked!

  4. blackflag said,

    hmm nicely stated wickedpinto. I would add that there is plenty of “shift of operational doctrine” going on already… (and rightly so) it just doesnt get back to the MSM 😉

  5. Muslihoon said,

    Perhaps that’s a good thing, blackflag. The less they know, the less they can mess things up.

    Thanks so much for commenting and stopping by!

  6. Dex said,

    With the war on terror and the congressional authorization to use military force against terror organizations (tantamount to a declaration of war), seems reasonable that any terrorist leader or cell could be legally targeted.

    Wickedpinto, I wasn’t aware that North Korea or Vietnam had anti-semitic policies. I could be wrong about that, though.

  7. Wickedpinto said,

    Dex? They are an anti-RELIGION mindset, and the most powerful, and fervent lasting voice in terms of religion IS the Jewish faith.

    All Communistic ideals, REQUIRE the death of religion, to allow the state to become a religion, they have worked to create religions of personality. It is “the beloved leader” the “good leader” the “kind leader,” etc, that defines the socialist regime, because it is the leader of the moment that is the faith of the people, Rather than the ancient, and established faiths that exist in religion. There is a movie called “the projectionist” and it consists of someone who is such a good party player, that he constantly calls Stalin “the master” not Stalin, and not anything else, “The Master” The use of title to supplant faith, and god, and prophet is a common tool, in the 20th century to destroy the idea of religion. “Did god pull you out of poverty” was a common tool of goebels. “did god feed you, and protect you ” was stalin’s mold, and “did god defend you as our people were slaughtered” was Mao’s.

    not SPECIFICALY anti-semitic, but Jews, are the most ancient of monotheisms, that find faith in god greater than any other goal. That is what I meant Dex.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: