My five minutes went too fast. You still report a covert action, just to a smaller and higher ranking circle of people.
And today Panetta admitted the CIA lies to congress.,and has for quite a while.
Its Bullshit. :dubious: Not that they weren’t capable of it and claiming it was legal, it’s just that Cheney isn’t stupid enough to name it, especially such a hokey name. If there was such a “ring” it’s likely be named something like “Operation Super-Patriot”.
There’s only one source for this- Hersh.
The constitution says that international treaties entered into are thenceforth national law.
If I were doing it, I’d use foreign nationals. Set a price on a specific target and then wire money into an account when they are killed. You could use a foreign national to do the latter as well. Base everyone outside the US.
I’m not sure if I care too much. If we could have done it to OBL we’d all be better off. The problem is picking the targets and knowing that they are really “bad guys”. Legalism aside, I see it as more moral than launching a wider war that will have more collateral deaths and destruction of property.
Sometimes I wish we had done this against mob-leaders that we knew were guilty but couldn’t prosecute.
Isn’t there a based-on-fact movie about Israel doing this to the Munich conspirators?
ETA: if the reports prove to be true, the public will not give a fuck. People love this stuff. There is a reason 24 and Robert Ludlum movies are popular.
Yes. “Munich”. Staring Eric Bana and the guy who played Caesar in “Rome” on HBO.
Well, 18 U.S.C. § 112 would appear to do the trick. In particular, subsection (e) appears to contemplate activities conducted outside of the United States.
What’s the meaning of “foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person” within 18 USC § 112?
see here. It basically means any foreign (or US) public official and his/her family traveling with them.
The question is what assassination means in “executive assassination ring.” If used correctly, then this statute would prohibit it. I’m thinking though it is just being used to mean to kill anyone (ie, not necessarily a public official), thus this statute would not apply.
Quoth Richard Parker:
Really? There’s no federal law against murder?
Generally no. Unless there’s some basis to make a murder a federal offense (killing a federal employee, interstate action of some sort, etc.), it’s a violation of local (usually state) law, and the locals are responsible for enforcement.
Which is why the FBI doesn’t get involved in every murder case in the country.
I thought that was Clinton’s gig.
Can you quote the relevant sections? Don’t just give us two cites and say read these. What’s the core of what they are saying.
Still just the one source.
And I second Johns request.
Guess I am just amazed that a private assassination squad is a perk of being Vice President.
I thought our government was built with the notion of checks-and-balances in mind. Sure the CIA and military will go kill people. Presumably though there is some oversight somewhere in there. I am unclear as to what the VP’s assassination group could do that the a CIA group couldn’t or wouldn’t. If the CIA would not assassinate someone then presumably there is a good reason for it that the VP sought to sidestep.
If this is true I am bothered by it not from the notion that our government will go kill someone but that one person is running the show. Power corrupts and this is quite a power to have.
We know from Guantanamo that the government was not overly choosy about who it snatched and dumped in there. How does Cheney know if some poor slob has it coming? Would it matter (legally) if Cheney was getting rid of foreign competition to Halliburton so they could get a juicy contract? Put another way is absolutely anyone on a list to be killed by the VP legally ok (inasmuch as US law would not bust him for it)? Isn’t the point of oversight to potentially prevent such an abuse? Also note that even if the targets were legitimate bad guys that none of us will miss the program was allegedly shut down due to collateral damage so, presumably, a fair number of actually innocent people got whacked.
This is all cool by everyone if it is true?
ETA: As to the truth of the allegations we do not know yet but apparently it is a matter of record that Panetta has informed the Intelligence Committee of some program that apparently shocked Democrats and Republicans alike. We do not know what that is yet but it seems apparent something is afoot that both Reps and Dems alike are uncomfortable with.
What did Cheney ever do or say that conveyed the impression he’d give a flying feck about offing an innocent person? He had no trouble authorising the bombing of Baghdad restaurants in the run up to the war on the off-chance Saddam might be eating there.
The man is a sociopathic war-criminal.
Nothing I am aware of.
That just highlights the point that these things are done with at least some oversight. That is not to say every decision is second guessed but rather that there is some accountability built in somewhere.
I’m not so sure. The definitions of the relevant potential victims seem not to apply to a person in his own country (e.g. "…while in the United States, " “…is in a country other than his own,” or “…is in a place that is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack [RP: which means the UN or an embassy, I believe].” Is there any case law on this?
According to the little I’ve read (academic analysis), this statute would not prevent the full repeal of EO12333. Usually if an EO is compelled by statute, there has to be legislation to repeal it. So that makes me think that it doesn’t really prevent foreign assassination.
Also, obviously, it does not seem to apply to leaders of terrorist groups.
Well, here’s a Wiki article on the Joint Special Operations Command, which apparently is very secretive. It is part of the U.S. Special Operations Command.
This article does not say that the JSOC reports directly to the POTUS or VPOTUS outside the normal DOD chain of command – nor that it doesn’t.