# Wasn't there a law against targeting foreign leaders? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2003, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791 "2003-03-20T13:14:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/1 "2003-03-20T13:14:21Z")
Back when Reagan bombed Libya, I seem to recall they couldn’t say they were specifically targeting Gaddafy because it was against international law to target foreign leaders. Since they hit his home pretty hard, it was obviously their goal, and everybody knew it. But they couldn’t admit it. Now, on the front page of CNN, there is a bullet item saying “Pentagon: Strike was a “decapitation attack” to take out Saddam before the planned start of the war” The story does not elaborate on this, though. Did the Pentagon actually say this? Did the law change? I’m kinda hoping so; as distateful as it is to assassinate leaders, if they don’t have that option then they do full-scale invasions with far greater loss of life. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/2 "2003-03-20T13:20:11Z")
I suspect that the law doesn’t hold during times of War. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/3 "2003-03-20T13:22:23Z")
Ah, I hadn’t though of that. Good point **Cal**. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/4 "2003-03-20T13:22:59Z")
I believe the Geneva convention says, _“unprovoked, classic assassination…”_ is not ok. But after war has officially been declared it’s free reign on opposition leaders. The bombing was clearly not a traditional assassination attempt, but it clearly was an attempt to break down the regime quickly. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/5 "2003-03-20T13:23:09Z")
If they are referring to what I think they are, it’s not even a law. It was an executive order from the Carter administration, I believe. Being an executive order, it can be rescinded any time by that or any later administration. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/6 "2003-03-20T13:23:12Z")
IIRC, it wasn’t anything at all about international law; 'twas an Executive Order issued by the United States applying only to acts of US citizens. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/7 "2003-03-20T13:27:42Z")
I think there may be the odd sentence in international law, however it is clear that they would not apply to this situation as there is a war on and Saddam Hussein is clearly a legitmate military target. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/8 "2003-03-20T13:48:30Z")
Saddam Hussein, personally, is not a target. However, any building, vehicle, bunker, or whatever that he happens to be occupying at any given moment, is the Mother of All Targets. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/9 "2003-03-20T13:51:31Z")
Saddam Hussein _is_ wearing a military uniform. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/10 "2003-03-20T14:18:36Z")
In addition to Saddam Hussein becoming a legitimate military target during war — he did attempt to kill former President Bush for actions and decisions Bush made while the US President. I always wondered if placed Saddam outside that Executive Order when he attempt to murder a former President as his \*\* response to the official actions and decisions Bush made while President\*\* An argument could have been made to kill Saddam even before war started last night. ---
**Author:** ![emulsified](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/emulsified/32/2915_2.png) [@emulsified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emulsified)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/11 "2003-03-20T14:19:55Z")
I posted this [link](http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/) in another thread, but it seemed relevant here. It summarizes the US position on assassinations. Basically, there is an executive order in place that bans political assassination. However… > [@](#): > > According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence “finding” instructing the CIA to engage in “lethal covert operations” to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization. > > White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence “finding” is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists. One thing the article doesn’t mention is a House Resolution (19, I think) that Bob Barr submitted that would rescind the executive order against assassination in its entirety. However, I don’t know what’s happened to that resolution, it’s possible that it died in committee. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/12 "2003-03-20T14:57:35Z")
On the radio this morning they had a war law expert talking about this. His take was that, yes, there is an executive order that we don’t kill non-military personell. This is an American rule. However, because Saddam is the actual leader of his country’s military, he is a valid target. He wears a military uniform and carries a sidearm and makes military command decisions on a very direct level. Bush, on the other hand, only makes policy decisions. So, Bush couldn’t be a legitimate target, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/13 "2003-03-20T15:02:57Z")
Don’ forget that the Americans targeted Yamamoto during WWII, tracked his airplane, and shot him down. This is no different. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/14 "2003-03-20T15:11:57Z")
Hussein is not a legitimate target because this is not a legitimate war. If the invasion is illegal, which it is, then so is the murder of Hussein. BTW, if you think this _is_ a legitimate war, then doesn’t that make _Shrub_\* a legitimate target? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/15 "2003-03-20T15:47:01Z")
So, we can expect all of the US and Allied soldiers to be brought up on war crimes charges soon, **Diogenes**? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/16 "2003-03-20T15:57:22Z")
We can’t “expect” _anybody_ to be brought up on war crimes, but GWB _should_ be. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/17 "2003-03-20T16:00:19Z")
Which war crimes? We can have a mock trial as Saddam ignites the southern oil fields. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/18 "2003-03-20T16:09:06Z")
Why stop at GWB? If he is guilty of whatever your anti-war fevered mind has cooked up today, then surely the Joint Cheifs, NSA, SecDef, and even Ari share some of the criminality. Why not the soldiers too? Aren’t they the ones over there killing all the babies? :rolleyes: Or, maybe you could just tell me how it is illegal in [This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170989) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/19 "2003-03-20T17:33:07Z")
**Debaser** , I posted the relevant cites for illegality in the other thread. It’s ok with me if we round up all the higher ranking people in the Bush administration. I don’t blame the soldiers, though. They’re doing their jobs, and they don’t have any say in this. As far as I’m concerned, the troops are just victims of their government. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791/20 "2003-03-20T17:37:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush, on the other hand, only makes policy decisions. So, Bush couldn’t be a legitimate target, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be, for example. That makes no sense at all to me. Bush may be a civilian, but he is the civilian _Commander in Chief_ of all of America’s armed forces. That makes him the number-one human target in time of war, in my book. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasnt-there-a-law-against-targeting-foreign-leaders/162791.md?page=2)