I didn’t notice a thread on the topic, so i decided to sign up a start one.
If Pres. Bush follows the advice of Rev. Robertson and rescinded the executive order banning assassination of foreign, and then ordered the hit. Would he be legally obligated
sorry hit wrong button.
would he be legally obligated to notify the American public of his actions.
Legality doesn’t enter into it. Assassination of foreign leaders has been explicity illegal under U.S. law for thirty years.
This is exactly like asking “If George W. Bush decided to strangle Laura with his necktie and bury her in the Whitehouse basement, would he be legally obligated to hold a press conference about it?”
It’s meaningless.
The reason it’s illegal is that a president in the past issued an executive order, isn’t it? Thus, the OP’s query regarding if a current president issued an executive order saying, “Well, it’s now okay.”
if Pres. Bush rescinded the order (executve order 11905, sec 5g). it would no longer against American law. so i don’t see how those would be considered similar crimes.
So if he did order the assasination would he be obligated to tell the public that he did rescind the order, or would this be considered privileged information?
Is the question, then, “Must executive orders always be public knowledge?”
No. He’s under no obligation to notify the public. He could issue another executive order saying that in the case of Chavez the old order didn’t apply for reasons of ‘national security’ then have the sucker declared a Top Secret matter and go his merry way.
It would eventually get out but almost certainly not during his term.
Although, at this point, if Chavez stops a bullet there’ll be some stares.
I changed the title of the thread to more descriptively ask the question that the OP wished to ask…
Titles! They’re your friend.
samclem GQ moderator
I don’t dispute what you’re saying. It just seems difficult to imagine how to argue the case. Somebody bumps off the Despot of Elbonia, and gets caught. Conclusive evidence Bush ordered the hit is siezed. “Foul!”, cry the Democrats, and demand Bush’s head. Bush whips out executive order XYZ: “Not any more!”.
That whole arrangement just strikes me as bizarre. Bizarre isn’t a criterion to deny anything, necessarily, but it seems executive orders can be negated willy-nilly on the sly, and hence aren’t really worth all that much, if what you say is true.
The other side of the coin is that an act of Congress can overturn any executive order, and there isn’t a thing the president can do except try to convince Congress to let him have his way.
But that seems to fit in perfectly well with our democracy and the concept of checks and balances. If the Legislative branch isn’t having any of what the Executive branch is doing, and they’ve got the votes, a de facto law is overturned.
Now, how on Earth can that arrangement work if executive orders are secret?
according to wikipedia most don’t have force as law. It seems that they are used almost like how a court would use precedent of law to rule on a case.
so i guess if he wanted to he could ignore the order all together.
samclem, :smack: sorry bout that. i’ll do better next time
But if Bush gives a secret order to kill Chavez now, everyone will think it was Robertson who did it. It’s the perfect crime.
Seriously, the purpose of issuing Executive Orders is not for the President to create a rule telling himself what he can do. Obviously that would be pointless. Executive Orders are to tell other federal employees what to do or not do. President Ford issued an order banning the assassination of foreign officials in order to tell people like CIA agents not to do that. But if another President decides he’s okay with the idea, he can give out a new order.
An Executive Order is not a law, it’s just an order. Of course it’s an order from a high-tranking authority that many other people are required to obey by law.
:smack: I have no idea how my eye slipped over such a significant portion of your OP. I’m sorry about that.