response 26 of 122:

Jul 24 00:08 UTC 2003

You seem to be the one with difficulty with simple, clear, English.

From http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/

"In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence
Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled
"Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States
Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political
assassination." 

"Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on
assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with
the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section
2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on
assassination. 

"In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the
assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the
topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or
piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

That is, until some subsequent presidents just ignored the policy, most
recently, and mostly clearly, by Bush.

response 28 of 122:

Jul 24 00:55 UTC 2003

Wait a minute, Rane.  I don't necessarily agree that yesterday's attack 
was an assassination.  Would you care to support your assertion?

I generally think of assassinations as being highly covert, attacks 
very specifically directed individually at a single person with no 
intention to harm anyone else, carried out by a single person, and 
using weapons such as a handgun or knife, or poison.

It is very much a legitimate military operation -- and not an 
assassination -- to attack a military installation for an opponent.  
It's legitimate to attack a military leader with weapons of war in 
order to disrupt the opponent's ability to make war.  It wasn't an 
assassination attempt when Clinton sent cruise missiles into Yemen 
against Osama bin Laden's base, or when Reagan sent cruise missiles 
against Moammar Khaddafy in Libya -- were they?  I never heard anyone 
call either of those attacks an "assassination attempt".

It is a legitimate police action to respond with force to someone who 
is resisting arrest.  For example, the assault on the Branch Davidian 
compound in Waco, Texas was not an assassination attempt, it was an 
effort -- which went badly wrong -- to arrest the leader of the Branch 
Davidians.  At least that's how I understand it.

response 30 of 122:

Jul 24 02:48 UTC 2003

I have to disagree with Rane.  This isn't assassination.  In the first
place, I don't believe killing Saddam or his sons is the goal.  I
haven't been following this closely, but I think they'd prefer to take
him alive.

Second, they are legitimate military targets in what is obviously a war.
No, it hasn't been properly declared, but that's not especially Bush's
fault.  Our wimpy congressional noodles (of both parties) have entirely
abandoned the congressional responsibility to declare war.  They haven't
done in in ages.  The notion that this is not a war is a stupid
political fiction.  For all moral purposes this is a war.

I don't like the ransoms much, but I don't consider them illegal or
immoral in the current context.  I think they bad tactically.  It may
play well in the US, but I'd guess that it will spin badly in Iraq.  In
the minds of Iraqis, who are the Iraq citizens who cooperate with the
Americans:

  (1)  Iraqi patriots working for a better future for all of Iraqi, or

  (2)  Greedy traitors, helping America against their own people for
       personal gain.

It's vital to the success of the American mission in Iraq that the Iraqi
people eventually except option (1).  The more people believe that, the
safer our troops in Iraq will be.  Our enemies in Iraq will be pushing
view (2).  The more people believe that, the more Iraqis will oppose us
or refuse to help us, and the more Americans will die.  These extremely
public and extremely large bribes draw a lot of attention.  The people
who get these ransoms will be among the most prominent Iraqis "friendly"
to the US, among the first to come to mind when ordinary Iraqi people
think of people friendly to America.  And they fit resoundingly into
category (2).  The whole thing can be spun very strongly against
America's mission in Iraq.  Our claim is that we are there for the good
of the people to depose the hated tyrant Saddam.  Offering huge bribes
to the people to try to convince them to help us catch Sadam undermines
that claim.  If the people really hate Saddam and love us, then they
shouldn't need such buge bribes to cooperate with us.  Offering so huge
a bribe suggests that it would take such a huge bribe to convince
someone to turn Saddam in to us.

So my reading of this is that the bribes improve Bush's image in the US
as a tough leader who will stop at nothing to bring down the bad guy,
but undermine our stated mission in Iraq.  Which doesn't much surprise
me because I think Bush has told mostly lies about why we are in Iraq. I
much prefered presidents who mostly just lied about their sex lives.

I don't think these ransoms will ultimately cost more American lives. 
They would if we meant to stay there in the long run, but I think Bush
will pack up and leave as soon as he can plausibly declare victory. 
Killing or catching Saddam might well be that point, and the bribes
could speed that up.  Getting our troops out faster may save more lives
than cranking up the hatred for our troops costs.  Plus getting out
troops out before the election would be good for Bush.

response 32 of 122:

Jul 24 05:41 UTC 2003

We don't have the full story yet, but it would have been perfectly practical
to surround the building and wait them out (cutting power and water). If
they commit suicide, then that's that. But there was no need for another
Waco style seige. I consider it an assassination because killing them was
a higher priority than capturing them. 

response 34 of 122:

Jul 24 16:31 UTC 2003

We checked the dictionary.  It appears that Mr. rcurl did not and is 
once again using words to suit his own extreme viewpoints.

as sas si nate : transitive verb  1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly 
and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

1.  Do you believe the the Messrs. Saddams did not expect to be 
attacked??

2.  The news reported that prior to the extended firefight, U.S. troops 
went to the door of the residence and requested permission to search.  
If the request had been approved it would have facilitated the non-
violent apprehension of the two gentlemen.


And Mr. janc appears to have had a lapse of his normally well-state 
positions.  As the constitution reads, it clearly does not provide 
Congress with the sole authority to go to war:

Section. 8. 
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To   
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and 
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; .


re:  "#32 (rcurl):  We don't have the full story yet, but it would have 
been perfectly practical to surround the building and wait them out..."

How does Mr. rcurl know the practicality of such a strategy??  What 
possiblities exist for surruptitious escapes under the cover of 
darkness or through underground tunnels?

response 36 of 122:

Jul 24 21:15 UTC 2003

Well. I would only consider it if I could go live in France. ;)

response 38 of 122:

Jul 24 22:33 UTC 2003

I've paid money (to airlines) in order to leave the US in the past, but I've
also paid the airlines to bring me back here.  There's are big differences
between leaving home on a trip, leaving a previous home to move elsewhere
knowing that you can come back and visit, and leaving knowing you can never
see those you are close to again.

Of course, 150 years ago that last scenario was pretty common, since that was
what moving any significant distance meant.  I have plenty of ancestors who
did so, as probably do most of us.  That doesn't make it any easier for me
to imagine now.

response 40 of 122:

Jul 25 04:16 UTC 2003

re#32:  Perhaps police officers have the training and the patience to
wait out someone who shoots at them.  Troopers on the otherhand are
trained to kill someone who shoots at them.

response 42 of 122:

Jul 25 12:49 UTC 2003

Maybe there should have been a nationwide referendum in Iraq.  "Should 
the Hussein brothers be shot and killed, or should US forces attempt to 
contain them and eventually arrest them?"  That way, a popular decision 
could have been assured.

response 44 of 122:

Jul 25 16:21 UTC 2003

Perhaps Odai and Qusai could have benefited from human shields.  (Mr. 
rcurl, are you busy these days??)

response 46 of 122:

Jul 25 16:54 UTC 2003

The "consultation" with the Iraqi public could have occurred if the brothers
had been taken alive, in the form of a trial - you know, the former American
standard of justive.

Someone above objected to their killing being called "assassination". 
Perhaps "lynching" would be better? That is closer to another American
standard of frontier justice, when the posse breaks down the jailhouse
door and enacts "justice" on their own terms. Unfortunately there seems to
be no strict but honest Marshalls in our army. 

response 48 of 122:

Jul 25 17:06 UTC 2003

Ah, yes, but could either of these two gentlemen have gotten a fair trial in
Iraq? 

response 50 of 122:

Jul 25 17:30 UTC 2003

If by the "LAST time" you mean the Bush I war - Iraq had invaded Kuwait,
and we went to their defense. This time, we invaded Iraq.