Okay, okay… I know a lot of the rules have already been thrown out the window - but isn’t it illegal as far as rules of war go to try and assassinate Saddam Hussein?
Hell, no. Why should it be? Killing enemy military personnel, and most especially/most desirably their commander-in-chief (as well as other commanders), is standard business in war. Also during war, it’s not called assassination.
There is no Geneva Convention against assassination. There was a self-imposed Executive Order from Gerald Ford in the 1970s that disallows assassination, but that can be withdrawn and does not have the power of law.
Can chip in with a further question?
If Saddam has some ‘friends’ currently living in the US is it perfectly legitimate for them under international law, now war has been declared, to assassinate GB43?
The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and thus a legitimate target. Or does he have to be on the field of battle to legitimise the attempt?
Apparently, he may have been targetted on Sept 11, 2001.
I propose that the manner of the attempted assassination could have been illegal. Just as the use (but not the possession) of weapons of mass destruction is illegal, the Hague and Geneva conventions define an international agreement of legal behavior between combatants. We used to have to study this stuff back in the Army days, and I’ll have to dig out the old FM-something-something when I get home to double-check, but there are certain weapons that are illegal to use to target human beings. For example, a 50 calibre gun can be used to destroy a 2.5T truck, and if a person happens to be inside it and gets hit, well… but you can’t use that 50 cal. gun to target human beings specifically. The “purpose” has to be to destroy equipment and materiel.
I realize that you could argue that we target the buildings where these guys were were the targets, but that’s really kind of pushing limits with that argument.
Balthisar, the old military legend about not being able to use .50 calibre guns on personnell due to the Geneva (or other) convention has been debunked at least a dozen times in GQ on this message board. It’s not against any of the rules of war to target a .50 caliber gun on a human being despite what some gunner from the army may have told you. Similarly, there’s nothing in any of the conventions that prevents targetting a person with other big weapons; dropping a MOAB to kill Hussein is fine and dandy. The limits are on weapons that are designed to cause hard-to-treat injuries, like weapons with fragments that can’t be found on X-rays. If you disagree, cite the applicable chunk of the GC since no one has been able to do so in the past.
Related item that may be of interest to the OP: Admiral Yamamoto was targeted (successfully) in WWII:
http://www.grunts.net/special/yamamoto.html
Lt. Barber, who may have shot down the plane, has said in interviews, ‘it was a hit.’
I won’t pretend to speak with authority, but I think there is a difference between what is done at the battle front vs. behind enemy lines. That is why during a war, people caught behind enemy lines can be executed as spies. I am not sure exactly what constitutes enemy lines, however; possibly the battle front. Since there is no battle taking place on US soil, I would think that any attempt to assassinate POTUS would be prosecuted under US law. If Iraqi tanks rolled through DC that might change the picture.
A couple related threads in GD:
Riboflavin that was just the first example I could think of off the top of my head, and I won’t necessarily disagree with you on that specific point. I did say I’d go dig out the old Field Manual, though. It wasn’t necessarily in order to look up gun sizes, but it may not be a bad time to do to say either “thanks for setting me straight” or “:p”.
It’s a violation of U.S. law to assassinate the President of the U.S., regardless of the state of war. It’s a violation of Iraq law to assassinate Saddam Hussein, regardless of the state of war. Neither head of state considers himself bound by the other’s laws, yet either head of state would prosecute, if possible, such an attempt by the other. Is there any international law on the subject? Does anyone really care?
During the Ford administration, there was an executive order signed which prohibits the U.S. from assassinating leaders of other nations. Of couse, GWB could very easily come out with his own executive order which says leaders of other nations are fair game.
Riboflavin, “thanks for setting me straight.”
From my copy of FM 27-10:
(emphasis mine)
The bombardment section also clearly spells out that the bunker wasn’t excluded for bombing, so everything seems on the up and up.
FWIW, I wasn’t against this objective by any means!