My little pit rant got me to thinking (and that’s some dangerous shit).
What if I did my country a favor and took out one of these guys, as my own government has tried to do in the past and failed.
Would I be considered a murderer? Would I get a reward? I would have to live in the Witness Protection Program for sure.
What are the up and downsides to all of this? I want to be 007!
Do us a favour. Go try.
:rolleyes:
— G. Raven
That link was supposed to be United States Code, Title 18, Section 956.
I remember that during that farce known as the Kosovo War, there were plans to bomb the Presidential Palace in Belgrade in order to get rid of Milosevic. I heard that the Americans couldn’t do that because there were a legal rule that foreign Heads of State may not be killed (obsure law, I admit).
But I think killing a foreign Head of State is something a state would be quite hesitating about; the CIA tried to assassinate Castro several times, but the concept of national sovereignty forbids every attempt, which is the reason why even in the Second World War, there were no serious plans to kill Hitler. Good boys don’t do that, even if the local ruler is a swine, So you’ll probably get persuceted.
I don’t think a government would ever do it, and even the Castro attempts wer not done by the U.S. Government, but by the CIA. Otherwise, Saddam & Co. would already be dead.
Huh? The CIA is an agency of the United States Government.
See also 18 U.S. Code 1116, “Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons”:
It almost seems like there’s a loophole here that would allow an American citizen to kill a foreign head of state and not be prosecuted (by the United States, at least) if he a) did it without any accomplices and b) did it while the foreign head of state was in his own country. Presumably, if you assassinated the Queen of England, in London, all by yourself, and were then able to flee back to the U.S., we would simply extradite you to be tried under British law and drawn and quartered or whatever it is they do to regicides over there, but I suppose this wouldn’t apply to Iraq or Cuba, since I don’t think we have extradition treaties with those countries. IANAL, though, so I wouldn’t do anything irrevocable based on my interpretation of the law.
I notice an astonishing similarity around the world’s Internet message boards.
This one’s from Iran:
What if I did my country a favour and took out the US President, as my own government has tried to do in the past and failed. (1)
Would I be considered a murderer? Would I get a reward? I would have to live in the Witness Protection Program for sure. (2)
What are the up and downsides to all of this? I want to be a National Hero! (3)
(1) I don’t actually know of any such attempt. But if you describe someone as the Great Satan, it stands to reason that killing him would be morally correct.
(2) I’m sure you’d get a large reward and a pension.
(3) Hopefully this entire thread is somehow sarcastic. If not, then you need to consider very carefully why killing people makes you, a US citizen, the good guy.
glee, do you have a link to that message or are you just trying to contrast? If you are doing the latter ignore this post.
“Could I legally kill Castro, Arafat, or Saddam Hussien?”
Not in Cuba, the Palestinian Authority, or Iraq you can’t! 
Somehow i don’t think the words “Legally & Kill” fit together too well. But … some people would not define
1.Ethical
2.Doing the world a potentially great favor
3.Saving the world alot of BS
as Legal - but they sometimes do it anyway.
What would be the difference in punishment, if you were perhaps the “Button Man” that dropped the Nuke on Saddam’s house, killing him? Or what if you were El Presidente’ who ordered that the nuke be released? vs. Just being some average Joe who thought he’d do the world a favor by annhialating a psychopath?
If it were a case of you being ordered to do it for your country, you’d be a hero.
If you did it on your own merit - and the government could take no credit for wiping out a threatening force, of course they’d all call you a murderer and want to see you punished.
*But theoretically, if I were in a position to reach the Madd Ass’s cranium with a gun (that is if i owned one, or had the balls to even attempt to harm another human being) I don’t think I would be too concerned with the legalities, or what my reward/punishment might be.
I’d better explain my position.
I come from England, which is part of the UK and affiliated to Europe (European Union) and the US (North Atlantic treaty).
We are now a democratic monarchy, with regular elections. (I might have some harsh words for our politicians, but they do promptly stand down if defeated at the polls.)
I have a lot of rights, including the right to criticise the Government in public. Indeed one of our London Parks has an area called Speakers Corner, where people do just that regularly.
England is a civilised country.
We also have a lot of history. We have been ‘involved’ in Ireland for over 800 years, and the potentially violent situation there is still not finally resolved.
We ran India through a company, purely for profit.
We have had legal slavery.
We have had child labour.
We still have religious discrimination - the Monarch cannot be Catholic, nor marry one.
America is a democratic Republic. Its free Press, freedom of information and freedom of religion are an example to the rest of the world.
America is a civilised country.
It also has history.
Native Americans were invaded, slaughtered and even infected with disease, despite signing legal treaties.
America had a massive program of kidnapping slaves from Africa (and then later discriminating against them).
The CIA, an arm of the US Government, inspired an overthrow of a legally-elected Government in Chile.
The Gulf War, which both the US and UK took part in, was fought over oil supplies. (If Kuwait only had sand, the UK and US would still be supplying arms to Saddam).
I don’t notice any armed world movement to free Tibet from the invading Chinese.
My point is that most nations have commited appalling acts in the past. What makes the US and the UK great countries is the rule of law through democracy.
Assassinating someone is absolutely not the answer, especially if you’re doing it for personal glory.
And of course it’s crass to claim that murder as legal. Legal where?
My post above was to suggest that executing the US president would probably be ‘legal’ in Iran, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba etc.
If you can’t see the difference, then it’s a real condemnation of the US education system.
I apologise if this is rather strong.
I compare this thread’s simplistic illegal violence with the nobility of the WW2 thread by Coldfire. That showed that sometimes war is necessary, but that it should always be a last resort, and never a cause for celebration.
With “Government”, I didn’t mean the entire apparatus administrating England’s former colonies, I mean the board of politicians consisting of the President, his advisors, ministers and so on. And the Castro murders were, at least as far as is known, committed without Kennedy knowing, so it was not a “Government” affair in the aforementioned sense. Intelligence agencies have a certain tendency to develop an autonomy that can probably make them do things their bosses do not want them to do.
Stave off your bloodlust long enough to read Geoffrey Household’s 1939 thriller ROGUE MALE.
It’s about a British gentleman/hunter who decides to take a crack at Hitler, and what happens to him afterward.
Not as easily , or as legally I suppose,as they could kill you.
My impression at least is that Kennedy did know about, and in fact directly ordered, the assassination attempts against Fidel Castro. You put “Kennedy” “assassination” and “Castro” into a search engine, and you get a lot of hits of, shall we say, widely varying reliability. However, this document, from the U.S. Department of State, seems to at least strongly imply that Kennedy directly authorized the assassination attempts:
Believe it or not…
There is a U.S. Executive Order (straight from The Big Man himself!) prohibiting the murder of any foreign head of state. For the life of me I cannot remember the number of the order but if you really need to know you can always check the Federal Register. They keep a running file of every presidential order, proclamation, memo, bowel movement, etc. This all happened fairly early in the Clinton administration. I imagine it would be in either Volume 57 or 58 of the Register. Why would Mr. Clinton enact such an innane policy? Well, there are a lot of reasons Mr. Clinton penned this particular order.
For instance, while you think you may be doing your country a favor by killing say, our old arch-nemesis Saddam Hussein, you may actually be creating more problems for us (and the rest of the world) than you would be solving.
It was actually the Bush administration that originally made the decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The U.S. (and others) want to keep Saddam around. The traditional motive was that they needed him to provide stability in Iraq, to keep it together. Also, without getting too much into it, Saddam is a Suni Muslim. He keeps the Shiite Muslims in his own country (especially in the south) under strict control and this brings stability to the entire area. The Shiite of Iraq are a potential threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, especially if they were to revolt and join forces with predominantly Shiite Iran. The U.S. wants Saddam weakened, but still in control. That’s why the U.S. didn’t stick around to help the Iraqi rebels after the Gulf War. This problem still exists today. How do we keep Saddam in check (bending to western pwer) but still in power in his own country? When he took over, Clinton adopted Bush’s policy and released this Executive Order for fear that if tensions between the U.S. and Iraq rose again (which they did) an overzealous military would perhaps off Saddam and inadvertently throw the Middle East into one hell of a tizzy. A very serious mess if you know what I mean. Worse than now or ever. Stability is a tenuous thing in the Middle East.
Anyhow, to answer your question Daemon, if you were to assassinate an American enemy for us, I can almost guarantee that you would not be considered a hero in any nation but you would be in a ton of trouble.
Executive Order 12333 is posted on the CIA homepage. Among other things, EO 12333 declares that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” The order is dated December 4, 1981, which would make it early in the Reagan Administration. EO 12333 actually replaces earlier Executive Orders which prohibited assassinations by the U.S. government dating back at least to the Ford Administration.
Note that this is a prohibition on agents or officials of the U.S. government from carrying out or participating in assassinations. The OP of this thread was whether it is a violation of U.S. law for an American citizen, acting in a private capacity, to assassinate a foreign head of state.
[hijack]
Several nations, including the United States, have the death penalty. That is legal killing. Whether or not it’s “murder” is more a topic for GD.
[/hijack]
I’m quite confident that the United States government would take a very dim view of any of its private citizens taking out political enemies. Aside from the cynical view that their publicly expressed views might not agree with their private ambitions regarding “enemies of the States” (:)), vigilantes have never been well regarded.
Kill the puppet and the puppetmaster becomes the star of the production.
Please please PLEASE take out Cheney if you kill Bush. Please. Please please. PLEASE!!!
Or just take out Cheney and watch Bush slowly begin to shrink to the floor, closely followed by the marionette cross falling from Cheneys cold, dead hand.
Thank you. =)