War legality

The first “shots” of this war in Iraq were of the U.S. trying to take out Saddam. We did this several times during the war and were all treated to the B.S. Breaking news stories of " we MAY have killed Saddam Hussein."

Is this legal under international law? Can we just go in and kill the leader of a sovereign nation? Certainly we wouldn’t be too happy with the opposite scenario-the Iraqis striking at D.C. and taking out our leader. How could these attacks have been justified?

It’s a fair question to raise as to whether the war was illegal under international law, but that question has been done to death elsewhere on the board. Best not to revisit it here.

If the war was legal, then it doesn’t necessarily become illegal because the tactic of targetting the commander-in-chief is adopted. How could it be OK to target some unfortunate Iraqi conscript but automatically not OK to target the commander-in-chief?

The rule is that the use of force must be proportional to the wrong which it is sought to redress. The legality of targetting Sadaam, like the legality of any other use of force against Iraq, could be measured against that criterion. Whatever facts are relied upon to justify the use of force against Iraq can be relied upon to justify an attack on Saddam, and in both cases the question will be the same; is this use of force proportionate to the wrong which is said to justify it?

Same goes for an Iraqi attack on George W. If the Iraqis had had any legitimate reason for recourse to force against the US, then the legality of an attack on GWB would depend on whether it was a proportionate respose to the Iraqi casus belli.

If - a hypothetical - the US attacked another state and targetted the head of state without any justification, then an attack on the US directed against GWB would probably be lawful, because it would be a proportionate counter-response to the illegal measures taken by the US.

Am I correct then, UDS, in surmising your post as “It’s complicated”?

The US has had a no-assassination policy for several decades, officially. Covertly, there have been a few attempts on Fidel Castro’s life. Accusations abound regarding behind-the-scenes assistance to various coups and assassinations. Covert operations are secret, though, so it’s unlikely we’ll ever know about those.

Offering encouragement and hints of rewards for Saddam’s assassination, as we openly did before the war was, ahem, more overt than usual.

Actually, it was President Ford who signed an executive order banning assasinations, in 1976, IIRC. That well post-dated the popularly known assasination attempts (and successes) like Casto, Lamumba, etc.

I am generally familiar with the laws of war as a body of customary international law, as well as with the treaties governing war, and I am unable to recall any case or restriction on targeting a foreign head of state, with the usual provisos (can’t use illegal weapons, can’t cause disproportionate risk to civilians, etc).

In short: there’s no legal difference between targeting a high-ranking general and targeting the head of state (and commander-in-chief).

I recall reading of a WWII case where the US had advance information (due to decrypting Japanese signals) that an important Japanese Admiral (planner of Pearl Harbor attack) would be flying a particular route at a particular time. Thus the US was able to have a squad of fighter planes waiting to attack his plane, they shot it down, and he was killed.

There was considerable controversy within the US Command at the time about doing this. Many US officers felt that this was ‘wrong’, and opposed doing it. But it was eventually decided to go ahead with the attack.

This was not reported at the time, because they feared the Japanese would then start making attempts to kill American leaders, and the possible exposure of their decrypting success. But even afterwards, this was not reported for many years. Part of the reason seems to be that many military officers continued to think that it was not really ‘playing fair’, and didn’t like it much.

No, the principle is simple. Even if there is justification for the use of force, the nature and amount of the force used must be proportional to the wrong being addressed. This rule always applies; there are no special rules dealing with an attack on a head of state.

The application of the principle can be complex, but only because the facts of any situation can be complex.

In the Iraq case, the real hurdle is deciding that an invasion of Iraq is justified in the first place. Once you get past that, an attack directed specifically at Saddam is a no-brainer.

If Saddam is a civilian, it’s illegal to assasinate him.

And as far as I can figure out from the Geneva conventions, he is a civilian - the relevant parts of the conventions descirbe civilians as anyone who aren’t members of armed forces etc. I assume he was commander in chief or similar, like the US president is, but I don’t think that qualifies as being a member of the armed forces. (I’m not sure about this part, hopefully someone with more knowledge of international law can confirm or correct this.)

He wore a uniform, he carried a gun, or didn’t you notice? :dubious:

I never heard about any laws or generally accepted custom (used in the modern sense of a source of international law, not as in “traditionnaly, the nobles were ransonmned rather than killed in medieval europe”) forbidding the targeting of leaders in a legal war, but anyway, I really can’t see how yoy could be at the same time the commander in chief and not considered as a member of the armed forces.

From (my) ethical point of view, a head of state is a much more acceptable target than the average 18 y.o. with a rifle, who most probably would rather be elsewhere. For instance, let’s assume that tomorrow some palestinian manage to kill Sharon, it would be the least attack I would condemn, not just because I don’t like Sharon, but because he’s the person who bears the ultimate responsability for Israel policies. Killing him would, IMO, be several order of magnitudes more acceptable than killing a random Israeli conscript.

just to add (concerning my Israeli example) that “more ethical” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a brighter idea. For instance, if the Iraki insurgent were to assasinate the US president, I would surmise that’s is more just than killing a random US soldier. Nevertheless, such an action would have vastly more serious consequences, hence could be a plain stupid one.

Um, right, that’s a pretty obvious indication of non-civilian. :o (I assume he wore a real uniform of the Iraqi armed forces, and not one of those ceremonial things which heads of state sometimes use.)

Really? What if the leader is obviously civilian - not commander in chief of armed forces, doesn’t wear a uniform, has never served in the military? Thatcher during the Falklands war probably fits those criteria.

Is queen Elisabeth a member of Britain’s armed forces? (Yes, I know, I’m splitting hairs here - there’s a pretty big difference between a symbolic CIC like a king or queen and a CIC who holds real supreme command of the army, like Saddam did.)

I’m inclined to agree. I wasn’t arguing about the ethics of assasinating Saddam, I was speculating on its legality.

Perhaps on a moral level, but not on a political level. No state can accept the murder of its leadrs, because beyond their status as individuals, they also represent state institutions, and an ataqck on them is an attack on the office they hold. A President is more than just a man, he is also the embodiment of the office of the Presidency. This hold even stronger in democracies, because one can see assasinating elected officials as a form of interference in the democratic process - the people wanted him or her in power, and the assasin thwarted their will.

This is why killing leaders is a causus belli of the heighest order, deserving a response above and beyond that warrented by the actual individual assasinated. Why do you think Yasser Arafat is still alive?

Actually, the US announced, shortly after his capture, that Saddam would be considered an enemy prisoner of war, fully entitled to GC protections. This determiniation was made because of his position of commander of the Iraqi military. News article.

The person you are talking about was Yamamoto and I’ve never heard about this ‘playing fair’ issue or anyone on the US side having issues with it. I’m really wondering about many things in this post such worrying that the Japanese would start targeting American leaders.