Illegal under whose laws? I could see something of an argument that american laws only apply to americans and/or when on american soil, and if you don’t care about the foreign country’s laws…
If I read the “and” of your “and/or” correctly, then if an American citizen commits murder, it is OK as long as the American does it in another country? Huh? Or am I misreading you here?
Surely I am not the only person who read the thread title and envisaged Cheney stalking around wearing a Borgia Pope-style hinged ring with poison in it (or better still a 007 sovereign ring with a tiny little gun inside), that he could use to assassinate people he didn’t like?
For all I know it is (well, probably not under the laws of the country you’re doing the killing in, but that’s a separate issue). Of course, IANAL, so maybe we have conspiracty to commit laws that would apply even if the crime itself was out of jurisdiction.
Well, clearly somebody in the government can do this; going off and killing people in other countries is what the military does. I wouldn’t bet a plug nickel that the way this was done would count as proper official channels, though. (Though IANAGeneral, so ymmv.)
It ain’t gonna be okay under the other country’s laws, of course, but I honestly couldn’t tell you if that’s illegal under American laws.
Like many things, I suppose it would depend on the relationship of the two countries. If, for example, Cheney authorized the killing of a Canadian politician, because he said something nasty about Cheney’s family, it would be a bit different from Cheney authorizing the killing of a Somali warlord…
Yeah, and I’d need a lot more proof that such a “ring” existed before I’d believe it.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were supreme assholes that wouldn’t listen to their advisors, and perpetrated a lot of bullshit, but something like this needs more substantiation.
Sounds (and smells) like a load of horseshit to me…but will await developments. One thing though…Chaney et al have been out of office for months now. If this is still going on (or was going on and hasn’t subsequently been prosecuted by the new sheriff in town), then…well, doesn’t that seem kind of fishy to anyone?
As I see it, there are two parts that could potentially be unlawful: the unilateral knowledge of and control over the squad, and the actions of the squad.
On the latter point, no federal statute criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. While Executive Order 12333 prohibits some assassinations, Clinton modified it so that he could order basically this kind of anti-terror assassination. Plus, a more recent order from the C-in-C or his subordinate would trump the EO as a legal matter anyway (though it is possible that the modification of the order has to be made public). Some kinds of assassination are prohibited under international law, in its various forms. We would need to know more about what exactly they did, and what the justifications were, to assess the legality under international law.
As to the unilateral knowledge and control, it is probably not unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the executive gets to decide what our troops do outside our borders. And, any impropriety related to Congress’ war powers would be remedied by the AUMF which was pretty much Congress giving up all their power.
The only remaining argument I can think of is that it is almost certainly a violation of the federal statute requiring the briefing of key congresspeople on intelligence activities. But then, the CIA is basically admitting they violated that statute repeatedly, so the assassination-ring would add little new to that story.
These are words that jumped out at me in just two sentences: “theory” “bandied about” “allegedly” “possibility”
The Program - the CIA reports directly to the Executive Office of the President. This seems like a special program they would be involved in. Nothing out of the ordinary with that type of direct oversight. Also, The Joint Chiefs is not the in military chain of command. The DoD obviously is under command of the CnC. So nothing wrong with bypassing them. *see **Richard Parker **post about possibly not reporting to the Senate or House of Rep Intelligence Committee.
What the program does - killing people. It would depend on the person being killed.
To early to call at this point. “Executive assignation ring” language makes it way to early.
You would be prosecuted under the laws of that other country, provided we had an extradition treaty with them.
I’m not sure how this is different from the predator drone killings we routinely do in Pakistan, although I suppose Congress has some oversight over that activity. At any rate, this is (to quote the OP’s article) “Another theory being bandied about”. Doesn’t sound like there’s a lot of proof at this point.
As to the likelihood of the story being true, I guess prudent people will wait and see. As a matter of speculation, I find it to be entirely plausible. We already know the CIA was bypassing Congress on other matters. After Guantanamo turned into a legal morass, the administration may have decided it was just easier to kill people on the “battlefield” than capture them. And I’m not sure they’re wrong. We know they snatched people up and sent them to be tortured (and not the kind of torture that NPR wrings it hands over calling torture–we’re talking sending them to Morocco). Is just killing them that great a leap?
Though assassination is probably a misnomer. I would think we’d notice if a bunch of foreign officials were suddenly being mysteriously killed.
My (limited) understanding is that key congressional leaders are supposed to be briefed on any significant intelligence activity as a matter of federal statute. But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that I’m wrong.
ETA: Here’s a memo outlining the statutory requirements: merln.ndu.edu/merln/mipal/crs/NSA18Jan06.doc
Legality aside, I’m wondering just how this could be implemented without going through some traceable channels. The personnel involved need to receive classified intel, they need weapons, equipment, transportation and money. If they’re already part of the established system (military, intelligence) they need leave from their official duties to go haring off on the VP’s special assignments.
It’s the Torchwood paradox: if you’re really THAT secret, no one’s ever heard of you and you have no official authority. Anyone volunteering for this cowboy outfit would be setting themselves up to have their asses swinging in the wind, and if I were a Delta Force colonel I wouldn’t touch it with a 20-foot pole.
Statute 413. Basically you must keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 413b (e) of this title)
Here’s to guessing this would qualify as a covert action.
That . . . would be quite Bushian actually. A secret assassination force that can’t get the job done because it was constructed to be out of the loop, beyond restraint and oversight; and as a result has no connections or authority.