OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 06:18 AM
Congress Sets Sights On Assassination Bill
Wednesday, February 14, 2001
By Jon Dupre
WASHINGTON — A bill that would restore the president's authority to order the assassination of foreign leaders is winding its way through Congress even as it raises eyebrows outside Washington.
(unavailable picture)
Courtesy of Rep. Bob Barr's office
Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. introduced Resolution 19
Supporters say such a measure is necessary to counter the growing terrorist threat against the United States. Detractors call it nothing more than state-sponsored murder written into law.
House Resolution 19, introduced by Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., would erase three existing presidential orders that limit the president's ability to pick off pesky foreign leaders.
The main restriction dates to the mid-1970s, when Gerald Ford banned the practice by signing Executive Order 11905. He did so after congressional hearings uncovered several CIA-sponsored assassination plots against foreign leaders. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan broadened the ban to include anyone working for the U.S. government.
No other country has such formal restrictions on killing by government agents. Barr said the policy unnecessarily ties the president's hands.
"The president of the United States, whichever president it is, Republican or Democrat, ought always to have available to him the whole range of options," he said.
If the ban were lifted, the U.S. government theoretically could knock off such enemies as Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who survived a crushing military defeat but is still a threat in the Middle East, and Fidel Castro of Cuba.
But Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., said the U.S. government should announce its intentions and prove it is acting in self-defense before taking someone's life.
"When you kill someone without a legitimate basis and without avowing it...that is a murder," he said.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives Jan. 3 and is now being considered by the House International Relations committee. Like all other legislation before Congress, it faces an uphill battle and must pass the full House, Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
The text of the bill asserts that the government uses force, often unsuccessfully, to bomb countries in an attempt to kill terrorists. The new resolution would allow for other "limited action" to accomplish the same purpose.
Still, Sofaer said the killing of terrorists makes no sense.
"On balance, it hurts the interests of the United States rather than help the interests of the United States," he said.
Barr insists it would be another weapon in the fight against terrorism, but refused to speculate on who in the world should be targeted for assassination.
"Oh, good heavens, I'd leave that entirely up to the President," he said. "He's the one that's armed with the information on what these foreign leaders are doing."
source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010219122058/http://foxnews.com/fn99/politics/021401/assassin_dupre.sml
P.S. This neocon voted for the Iraq war. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml)
Wednesday, February 14, 2001
By Jon Dupre
WASHINGTON — A bill that would restore the president's authority to order the assassination of foreign leaders is winding its way through Congress even as it raises eyebrows outside Washington.
(unavailable picture)
Courtesy of Rep. Bob Barr's office
Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. introduced Resolution 19
Supporters say such a measure is necessary to counter the growing terrorist threat against the United States. Detractors call it nothing more than state-sponsored murder written into law.
House Resolution 19, introduced by Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., would erase three existing presidential orders that limit the president's ability to pick off pesky foreign leaders.
The main restriction dates to the mid-1970s, when Gerald Ford banned the practice by signing Executive Order 11905. He did so after congressional hearings uncovered several CIA-sponsored assassination plots against foreign leaders. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan broadened the ban to include anyone working for the U.S. government.
No other country has such formal restrictions on killing by government agents. Barr said the policy unnecessarily ties the president's hands.
"The president of the United States, whichever president it is, Republican or Democrat, ought always to have available to him the whole range of options," he said.
If the ban were lifted, the U.S. government theoretically could knock off such enemies as Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who survived a crushing military defeat but is still a threat in the Middle East, and Fidel Castro of Cuba.
But Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., said the U.S. government should announce its intentions and prove it is acting in self-defense before taking someone's life.
"When you kill someone without a legitimate basis and without avowing it...that is a murder," he said.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives Jan. 3 and is now being considered by the House International Relations committee. Like all other legislation before Congress, it faces an uphill battle and must pass the full House, Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
The text of the bill asserts that the government uses force, often unsuccessfully, to bomb countries in an attempt to kill terrorists. The new resolution would allow for other "limited action" to accomplish the same purpose.
Still, Sofaer said the killing of terrorists makes no sense.
"On balance, it hurts the interests of the United States rather than help the interests of the United States," he said.
Barr insists it would be another weapon in the fight against terrorism, but refused to speculate on who in the world should be targeted for assassination.
"Oh, good heavens, I'd leave that entirely up to the President," he said. "He's the one that's armed with the information on what these foreign leaders are doing."
source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010219122058/http://foxnews.com/fn99/politics/021401/assassin_dupre.sml
P.S. This neocon voted for the Iraq war. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml)