Sofa King -
Least you forget, we’re talking about OUR Executive Order. What others decide to do or decide not to do with regard to world leaders is their decision — “your book” notwithstanding. Note that Saddam decided it was just fine to attempt to murder former President Bush.
Sure it does. That’s why he has the Secret Service.
Yea, Sofa, I can see what the expert on the radio was saying but you have a good point too.
Either way, it is the ultimate theoretical never going to happen scenario. Because these are US rules. So, unless the US military is going to assasinate GWBush, this is all pretty academic.
The way I understand it, is this:
If the US was at war with a country like France, the military leadership would be a valid target. So, the Generals of the army, no matter how high up, would be open season.
However, it would not be the US policy to kill Prime Minister Chirac. Although he is making some military decisions, he is not a military person and would not be a combatant.
With Iraq, there is no such distinction. Saddam is making very active decisions regarding the military, and there is no seperation between the “political leaders” in Iraq and the “military leaders” in Iraq.
Is it me or does Diogenes get more and more shrill every day?
But isn’t President Bush the Commander in Chief.
I’ll generally agree with the goals of the administration in a war against Iraq, but we are now in a period of open hostility with Iraq.
It seems to me that President Bush is a perfectly legitamate military target, just like Hussein. Back in the Vietnam War, Johnson picked out targets for B-52 directly from serveillance photos. Although this was stupid and a huge waste of time, presumably Bush has the exact same authority, and if he wanted to, nobody would stop him from flying to the gulf and piloting an M-1 tank over the Iraqi border.
I don’t think that any U.S. Senators or Representatives are legitamate targets, but Bush seems to be okay to me.
Can someobdy put together a more complete argument against Bush being a definite military target?
I can understand how Chirac might not be a valid military target because I am not familiar with France’s government/military interaction, but the U.S. President and the Chief U.S. Military Officer seems to be one and the same to me.
I won’t argue the case, threemae. I was merely repeating what I had heard an expert say on the radio on my way into work this morning. They specifically talked about this issue, and that was his take.
Like I said, I can see the difference between Saddam and Bush. (The varying levels of involvement. Saddam wears uniform, Bush doesn’t. Saddam has gun on him always, Bush doesn’t.)
But, I also agree that Bush would seem to be a legitimate target because he is the commander in chief.
However, since this is a US policy, we can break it. Even if Saddam would qualify as someone not to be a combatant, I would rather see us kill him if it meant saving 1,000s of Iraqi lives. (or for that matter, Chirac can be shot if it means saving some frenchmen.
Are there any lawyers out there that can speak to the degree that a current president is held to a previous administration’s Executive Order without explicitly rescinding it?
Okay, thanks.
Is anyone willing to argue the case, or can we generally agree that Bush is a perfectly legitamate military target for Saddam?
I was wrong. Apparently, it was the Ford administration that issued that executive order.
Bush is definitely a legitimate target, because he is in the chain of command. Whether a commander has ‘operational control’ is the defining characteristic of what makes a leader a legal target.
Tony Blair is also a legal target. The Queen of England isn’t.
I think you’re misinterpreting this statement.
It is common during wartime to refer to the military of an enemy nation as though it were a monolithic entity controlled by – nay, even merely an extension of – that nation’s leader. During the airstrikes at thr outset of the first Gulf War, there was plenty of rhetoric about how we were “reducing Saddam’s ability to fight”. Obviously, nobody believed that Saddam himself would pick up a gun and start shooting at U.S. troops with his own hands or anything. We meant that we were reducing the ability for Saddam’s military forces to fight.
“Take out Saddam” is probably simple jingosim for “take out the military forces controlled by Saddam.”
Sure, Bush is a legitimate target. So is Saddam.
One may be dead. The other certainly isn’t.
It’s just an executive order. It would take Bush all of 5 minutes to draft and sign his own executive order that says “The U.S. can target foreign leaders whenever it damn well feels like”. Which is what Jack Ryan did in the Tom Clancy book Executive Orders.
Let me get this right. If an Iraqi were to get to the US and shoot Bush, he would have to be regarded as a prisoner of war? Should keep the lawyers happy.
How about if he was speeding on his way in to shoot bush? Or driving without a license? Littering?
The shooting Bush part would be OK, but I am sure we could arrest him for something. 
No, there’s another law which says that you can’t use treachery to kill a leader. You can drop a bomb on Bush, but you can’t invite him to a peace conference and then shoot him. I imagine you can’t dress as a civilian and assassinate him, either.
I’m not totally clear on the limits of military law here, but there are definitely legal and illegal ways in which you can target a leader.
According to the Geneva conventions, soldiers have to bear arms openly to be considered POWs. If an Iraqi pilot wearing an Iraqi uniform flew a bomber to the US and dropped a bomb on the white house killing George Bush, then ejected and was captured by the FBI, under the terms of the Geneva Conventions he would indeed have to be treated as a POW, and could not be charged with a crime. I’m sure we’d try to cook something up for him, but it wouldn’t be simple murder, we’d have to find some war crime or another to try him on, it would be very difficult.
If the same Iraqi soldier put on civilian clothes, bought an airline ticket to Washington DC, bought a saturday night special on a street corner, and took a potshot at the president’s motorcade, he WOULD be commiting a crime under US laws.
The Geneva Convention is a funny thing. Soldiers can kill each other in certain ways and at certain times, but not in other ways and at other times.
OK, Human Rights Watch, have said that it is legal to target Saddam Hussein as he is the chief of the Iraqi military:
I agree with Sam Stone on the military legalisms.
Given how often I agree with Sam about stuff, I thought it would be a good idea to post it.
Bush, Saddam, and Tony are all legitimate military targets while the respective nations are at war. The Queen ain’t, nor is the Secretary of State.
In the case of an invitation to discuss peace terms used to lure the supposed legitimate target out, that qualifies as a violation of truce, which is also against the Geneva Accords, and a number of other established concepts of war.
A person attacking a militarily appropriate target, be it person, or property, during time of war, while out of uniform is guilty of espionage, and may be executed for it under both US and international law. He is not guilty of a war crime, unless he attacks entirely civilian targets.
Another point mentioned in the thread: Diogenes may well be getting more shrill. Given that he opposes the war, and bombs are falling faster than at any time in human history, that doesn’t qualify as an unreasonable response.
“You have to sing loud, if you want to end war, and stuff.” ~ Arlo Guthrie ~
Exactly so, Trisk, I’ve found the last couple of days very distressing, but I’m glad to see that the US seems to be making a sincere effort to minimize casualties on both side, even Iraqi military casualties.