PDA

View Full Version : Barr in 2001 - Introduces Assassination Bill - House Resolution 19




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)

itshappening
05-26-2008, 06:20 AM
i'm more interested in what he's doing in 2008

Kludge
05-26-2008, 06:29 AM
We kill hundreds every week, why not organize the murders to make them more productive?

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 06:30 AM
We kill hundreds every week, why not organize the murders to make them more productive?

The McCain campaign would love to have you over I am sure.

Bradley in DC
05-26-2008, 06:33 AM
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=934

Kludge
05-26-2008, 06:33 AM
The McCain campaign would love to have you over I am sure.

I'd love to be over..... :rolleyes:

;)

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 07:37 AM
Bob Barr Wins Libertarian Presidential Nomination !!!!!!!!!!!!!! X10000 threads
-Bradley in DC

Kludge
05-26-2008, 07:38 AM
Bob Barr Wins Libertarian Presidential Nomination


Hooray!

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 07:50 AM
180° Off Course
by David Dieteman

Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) has proposed a bill – House Resolution 19 – which would allow American presidents to assassinate foreign leaders.

Apparently, the United States has a case of murder envy: no other country on earth has the same restrictions that the US does. Currently, not only can the president not kill foreign leaders, but no government employees can either. When did America go so wrong?

Congressman Barr is quoted by Fox News as saying that "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."

First, what precisely is "the whole range of options"? It would seem that this must include torture, drawing and quartering, and perhaps tarring and feathering. If so, how does this fit with Congressional blathering about "human rights"? It appears that human rights only count if they are the human rights of the "right sort" of people, i.e. people whose plight, when championed in front of TV cameras, will keep politicians in power.

Second, what sort of world would it be if Bill Clinton – Mr. Scruples himself – had had the power which Barr seeks to give to whatever used car salesman happens to slink into the Executive Mansion?

Jon Dupre of Fox News displays a dry sense of humor in writing that "If the ban were lifted, the US 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."

What would Hussein and Castro do if the assassins miss their mark? I seem to recall some discussion of Castro and JFK in this regard.

Also bad is what will happen should an assassin succeed: civil disorder is one possible result in a totalitarian nation which suddenly faces a power vacuum at the top.

It is also reasonable to expect that the inhabitants of a nation whose leader is killed by Uncle Sam will despise the United States for some time to come.

Even if an assassinated leader is unpopular at home, people have a funny way of reacting when meddling bystanders interfere in their own troubles. Imagine, for a moment, the anger that Americans would have felt if Bill Clinton – lecherous and mendacious as he was – had been assassinated by a foreign nation. Many who otherwise despised Clinton would nonetheless have responded to this attack on American sovereignty with great vengeance.

These are not good things.

Rather than engineer new ways to make the rest of the world hate us, the feds ought to think long and hard about the fact that foreign leaders might not hate us in the first place if Uncle Sam were not the bully of the world.

Representative Barr’s resolution is a recipe for starting wars, not ending them.

February 22, 2001

Mr. Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2001 David Dieteman

Working Poor
05-26-2008, 08:32 AM
I am sorry but, if we are minding our own business how would being able to murder a foreign leader make any sense? If that is the way libertarians think I want no part of them. I don't think I like that bill at all...

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 08:36 AM
I am sorry but, if we are minding our own business how would being able to murder a foreign leader make any sense? If that is the way libertarians think I want no part of them. I don't think I like that bill at all...

Worry not, I am sure he has flip flopped on assassinating foreign leaders like he has about invading iraq, spying on americans, the patriot act, the war on drugs, and virtually every other stance I find important. He is ex CIA so we can trust him. Besides, Bradley will personally vouch for the man....

familydog
05-26-2008, 08:57 AM
This bill is seriously messed up. The one thing Gerald Ford did right was issue his executive order banning this practice.

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 09:00 AM
It is indeed evil. GO BARR IN 08.....not.

forsmant
05-26-2008, 09:03 AM
Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today presented Congress with the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," legislation designed to give President Bush an additional tool in the fight against terrorism. He also introduced legislation that changes the federal definition of "piracy" to include air piracy.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.

"The President promised the American people that the federal government would use every available resource to defeat the global terror network," Paul stated. "Congress should immediately issue letters of marque and reprisal to add another weapon to the U.S. arsenal. The war on terrorism is very different from past wars, because the enemy is a group of individuals who do not represent any nation. Western intelligence in the Middle East is exceedingly limited, so we should avail ourselves of the assistance of those with better information to track, capture, or kill Bin Laden."

The Act allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations.

"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man," Paul concluded. "Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."


This is different from granting the president the power to order an assassination of the leader of another country. I would prefer Paul's approach of arresting Bin Laden instead of assassinating Hussein or Adymijad.

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 09:05 AM
This is different from granting the president the power to order an assassination of the leader of another country. I would prefer Paul's approach of arresting Bin Laden instead of assassinating Hussein or Adymijad.

Agreed, And it is oh drats, what is that quaint 'ol word, uh, hmmm, oh yes, constitutional to boot.

Sandra
05-26-2008, 09:10 AM
Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.

I believe he meant by non government as non US government by underlined context. This article uses lazy or vague terminology.

forsmant
05-26-2008, 09:14 AM
I believe he meant by non government as non US government by underlined context. This article uses lazy or vague terminology.

Either way, it does not call for the assassination of heads of state.

Sandra
05-26-2008, 09:17 AM
Either way, it does not call for the assassination of heads of state.

Oh, no. just arrest.

forsmant
05-26-2008, 09:20 AM
Oh, no. just arrest.

Bin Laden is not the head of state. The president would have a hard time justifying the arrest of the Saddam Husein without the military intervention into that country. Bin Laden is an international criminal. Saddam was an international criminal with legitimacy.

voytechs
05-26-2008, 09:26 AM
I'm speechless :eek:

Give executive more powers to kill. I will never vote for Barr and I can't believe how many people support him here. This is 180deg from what Dr. Paul advocates of NON-INTERVENTION - the biggest point of the entire campaign and the revolution!!!! Wake up and shake it off.

OptionsTrader
05-26-2008, 09:46 AM
Come on Barr people, don't you like your man's record? No defense of this great bll of his a few years ago?