If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Copvcia)   Republican proposes bill to lift ban on assasinations.   ( copvcia.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

981 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2001 at 2:29 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2001-01-29 02:58:33 PM  
Think Saddam might be sweating about now?
 
2001-01-29 03:15:58 PM  
Things are going to start getting really messy really soon. I was worried about Bush''s ability to handle foreign politics, now I''m terrified. It''s this kind of underground politics that sparks massive conflicts.
 
2001-01-29 03:42:44 PM  
As an announced Bush-hater and possible submitter of this link, I would like to point out that this bill was not proposed by Bush, but rather by a hard-right congressman who REPORTS that Bush will support it.
 
2001-01-29 03:58:07 PM  
This is silly, whether it''s true or not.

Seriously... if the government wants you dead, no law is going to stand in their way (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kosovo, Sudan... JFK... etc.)

Think about it.

Although it''s nice to see the left-wingers are breaking out their tin-foil hats and scanning the skies for black helicopters.

We were getting lonely out here in Montana.


benjamin
 
2001-01-29 04:08:16 PM  
I agree with Benjamin. Especially about the tin-foil hats.

You have to wonder, though, at the fact that Bin Laden and people like him are still walking around. You''d think someone would''ve got to them by now, given the government''s shady history of making people go away. There has to be a reason they haven''t been bumped off, beyond the "it''ll martyr them" theory.
 
JW
2001-01-29 04:30:25 PM  
When you think about it, it''s a silly issue to even be talking about. "We promise we won''t interfere in your government by secretly murdering your leader."

Why is this something they have to ban? "Oh, that good old U S of A is so nice and understanding. They promise they won''t kill our political leaders. Isn''t that nice of them?"

And Benjamin''s right. If the government wants you dead, pow, you''re dead. And some poor patsy is there to take the fall.
 
2001-01-29 04:37:17 PM  
I wonder if bush will kill me...
 
2001-01-29 04:56:53 PM  
I think we''re giving the gov''t a bit too much credit. Ruby Ridge and Waco were allmighty cock-ups, not tightly planned military assassinations. We would kill Ben Ladin in a second if we could, but we''re having (as far as I know) a hell of a time pinning down his location, other than "in Afghanistan somewhere." Didn''t we bomb one of his camps a few months ago because they thought he was there? I''m not afraid of the government''s secret and well-organized black ops. It''s the Keystone Kops stuff we should be worried about.

The thing that scares me about this bill isn''t the idea of assassination - as a matter of fact it''s legal now to assassinate anyone engaged in "acts of terrorism against the US." This would make it legal to kill someone for political reasons... essentially because we don''t agree with them. Having it be illegal may not stop it from happening, but it makes it more difficult to get away with.
 
2001-01-29 05:09:25 PM  
Two things to consider:
1) Assassinations may no longer be banned.
2) There''s a lot of unrest about W''s first moves as president.

Mua, ha, ha. Let me fetch my rifle.
 
2001-01-29 05:18:34 PM  
Only one sweating is me. My Army ace is going to be called up and killed thanks to the un-elected President''s asinine foreign policy. Be frightened, North America, be VERY frightened.
 
2001-01-29 05:34:52 PM  
wow.... maybe i am a right winger after all. its about time we brought assassination out into the open. personally, i think we need to kill more politicians and less normal people. i mean how many people did we kill in iraq because we didn''t like a move made by the political and military leaders(granted, what they did was supported by us beforehand but that''s beside the point). i would rather see political leaders get killed than many innocents bombed and starved just because they live in the wrong country. i''ve advocated assassination for years but figured we didn''t do it because our leaders were too scared that they would be on the receiving end of more assassination attempts. hopefully dumbass dubya won''t consider this aspect of the issue and will support this bill.
 
JW
2001-01-29 06:17:47 PM  
Actually, thinking about this, I see 2 scenarios, one with the ban, one without.

#1 - American enemy is assassinated. People point to the US. The president shows them the "no assassination" policy. People smile and go about their daily lives, confident that it wasn''t the States.

If that happens too much, people begin to believe it''s a joke.

#2 - American enemy is assassinated. People point to the US. The president denies it. Critics point to the removal of the "no assassination" policy. Americans are suspicious. Popularity falls.

If this happens too much, Bush won''t get a second term.

At least, that''s how I see it playing out. Having the "no assassination" policy probably does prevent some assassination attemps, all in the name of "popularity".

But still, if they *really* want you dead, bango. Gotta wonder about Saddam and Fidel though. Bin Laden too.

I find that Republicans (not conservatives) keep trying to find enemies/evils externally, while Democrats (not liberals) keep trying to find enemies/evils internally.
 
2001-01-29 06:34:56 PM  
I doubt the CIA/FBI worries about stuff like "legality" when it goes off killing leaders in the name of national security. Nothing will change besides the law itself if this is passed...

*coughSalvadorAllendecough*
 
2001-01-29 06:36:28 PM  
I see that the message I just posted was the exact same message as Benjamin wrote earlier...so I''d like to retract it and replace it with "I agree with Ben"
 
2001-01-29 06:39:20 PM  
JW: That last sentence of yours brings an interesting point. When will the government start assassinating Americans? I mean isn''t that how dictatorships take care of opposing political views? And just what justifies assassinating anyone, foreign or domestic?
 
JW
2001-01-29 07:01:53 PM  
Well, I''m pretty sure it wasn''t the Democrats who had JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinated.

As for the philosophy of assassination: "It''s to protect our national way." Essentially, that''s supposedly what it boils down to.
 
2001-01-29 07:09:27 PM  
Protect our national way? Suppose someone decides that our national way is Republican. Well, the Democratic leaders are in some serious trouble. Or suppose begins to say there are problems with our politicians and insist that we change things. By golly they''re threatening our national way. I know I''m sounding a little extreme but it''s a thought.
 
2001-01-29 07:09:48 PM  
It may not be a strong deterrent, but I think I''d prefer to have a law on the books that prohibits assasinations. I like the idea that there may be a whistleblower.
 
2001-01-29 07:10:56 PM  
Ok apparently there was some trouble with my typing (cursed HTML code!) "Or suppose ::insert religion of your choice here:: begins..."
 
JW
2001-01-29 07:18:40 PM  
SaintIgel: I don''t really understand your point. The US''s democratic system is more or less put in place to prevent that.

Assume W decides that Lieberman represents a national threat and has him assassinated. I don''t think he''d get away with it. I''m pretty sure that he would get his ass kicked in a truly bipartisan way, and would probably end up in jail or something.

This law doesn''t stop the government from assassinating people so much as the popularity issue does.

If you''re wondering if the prez could do that and really get away with it, well, take a look at the other countries of the world where this happens (like leaders who refuse to honour election results), and ask yourself if it could happen there.
 
2001-01-29 08:02:48 PM  
I rather enjoy putting things to the extreme. I know no one could get away with it, at least not at the current point in time. I''m just thinking that if the ban is officially lifted then it might become more rampant. If one were to assume a worst case scenerio suppose censorship starts getting more support. I''m not talking next week or even a few years, suppose many years down the road. Just sort of a what if, though I understand not very plausible, possible though?
 
JW
2001-01-29 08:47:04 PM  
Ah, then you also have to consider that the chief of the country, the prez, who would order the assassination, would also control military power.

Then we get back to "the right to bear arms" in case of government oppression.

That''s why the whole "right to bear arms" is completely antithetical to monopolistic businesses. Everything about the US is designed to avoid a centralization of power, and give ordinary joes the means to fight back. A monopolistic business is the exact opposite of that (which is why the damn law exists in the first place).
 
2001-01-29 09:09:33 PM  
It''s entirely possible i missed something in the transition to monopolistic business as opposed to the government, unless you''re saying the gov''t IS a business (which I guess in a way it is). I also missed you''re first sentence''s point (sorry, it''s been a long day). Of course the prez controls the military. The right to bear arms is agood point though. But even now gun control is a popular issue.

Thanks for your patience.

"stupidity should hurt" OWWW!
 
2001-01-29 10:20:53 PM  
Yah!, i got work again
 
2001-01-29 11:34:16 PM  
SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT:

Something nasty is gonna happen in the 4 years Dubya is in office. His administration is moving very fast to either destroy or limit what freedoms Americans have and now he wants carte blanche to let the Fed''s trained assassins go out and shoot anyone they consider a threat.

A friend of mine said he has a weird feeling that North Korea will come into this scenario somehow. I don''t see how, but then again, I wasn''t alive during the Korean Conflict, he was. My prediction: Dubya is gonna piss someone overseas off by shooting an enemy of the U.S. which just happens to be one of their allies. This type of powder keg sets off world wars (see World War I).....
 
2001-01-30 12:21:59 AM  
Is anybody else seeing the link between this article and the one about Saddam''s nukes? Sounds like the gov''t is trying to change the rules because it realizes it may not fare too well under the current ones.
 
2001-01-30 12:49:59 AM  
Why America feels it has the right to interfere in the politics of the rest of the world is beyond me...
 
2001-01-30 01:52:13 AM  
I remember hearing in an IR class something about how even though the US can''t officially just off somebody, all they do when they want it done is just hire a crack squad of sexy but deadly international lady supermercenaries who play by their own rules out of a secret base in the south pacific to handle it for them, Fox Force 5 comes to mind.

Or something like that.
 
2001-01-30 01:53:35 AM  
Sehnsucht: it''s because we can :)
 
JW
2001-01-30 02:22:42 AM  
The point of the first sentence was that if a president is willing to repeal a ban on assassination so that he can have his political opponents assassinated in the "national interest", then he''s probably not that far away from using military power (he probably already did - a soldier did the assassination) to prevent a civilian uprising - all in "national interest".

The point about monopolistic businesses is that the law that the DOJ is currently prosecuting Microsoft under is a law designed to prevent consolidation of market power in one entity. The similarity is that the United States political bodies are built in such a way to prevent consolidation of power as well. It''s one of the big things that keeps the United States so strong, but also keeps it from making sweeping changes if they are needed.

The point about the "right to bear arms" and monopolistic businesses is that they are similar issues - political power and market power. The funny part is that most Republicans support the free market which allows monopolistic businesses, but also the "right to bear arms", which prevents monopolistic governments.

It was a winding argument, I''ll admit.

Sehnsucht: It''s very easy to get involved in politics in another country if you feel that country poses a threat to your country, whether economic (Gulf War), social (WWII - more or less, any communist war - more or less), or life-threatening (Japan, WWII). It is also easy to become involved when you are aiming for peace (Middle East), or when the small guy is being bullied by the large guy (SHOULD HAVE BEEN Rwanda - dammit).

Plus, the US is the 800 pound gorilla. Put an 800 pound gorilla in a cage, and there''s very little that gets done that isn''t influenced either directly or indirectly by that big bastard.

Of course, you can always look at it that they are the only true superpower anymore, and want to keep it that way. There''s a lot of power retention undertones in intergovernmental actions.
 
2001-01-30 04:32:31 AM  
Cheers to Jaqqalax! What''s good for the goose is good for the gander!

As long as they''re not gingerbread geese...

Rhaokarr
 
2001-01-30 07:39:49 AM  
I think just about everyone is misinterpreting the gist of the law. For years and years there has been an executive order floating around forbidding our "external services" (CIA) from commiting political assasinations to further our goals. Bear in mind that this is CIA, also known as foreign affairs, and not FBI, hereafter known as internal affairs. I believe that this ban on assasinations has been a weakness of ours for the longest time. Israel wouldn''t be a nation at all without dedicated operatives for this specific type of deal (Mossad). Great Britain has the vaunted MI-6. Quite frankly, I think that if we managed to put a bullet in Saddam''s head, or perhaps Castro''s, not all problems would go away, but they''d certainly be easier to deal with. Quite frankly, idealism is all well and good, but in international politics, pragmatism needs to come first. And all of you that are worried about the Gov''t assasinating you, I hate to burst your bubble, but you just aren''t important enough.
 
2001-01-30 06:55:22 PM  
I highly doubt that killing off Bin Laden is going to end middle-eastern terrorism against the US. Chances are it will only increase it. When you assassinate someone it must be because they literly have a cult following of them, and with them dead their movement will end. Taking out Bin Laden would not end the Muslim/anti-US terrorist cause.

Assassinating Adolf Hitler in WWII ( many failed attempts where made on his life ) may very well have saved the lives of millions. Perhaps someone would have taken his place, mabey not. It would have been better for the US to take out the Axis leaders in WWII and get on with life.
 
2001-01-30 07:13:25 PM  
I highly doubt that killing off Bin Laden is going to end middle-eastern terrorism against the US. Chances are it will only increase it. When you assassinate someone it must be because they literly have a cult following of them, and with them dead their movement will end. Taking out Bin Laden would not end the Muslim/anti-US terrorist cause.

Assassinating Adolf Hitler in WWII ( many failed attempts where made on his life ) may very well have saved the lives of millions. Perhaps someone would have taken his place, mabey not. It would have been better for the US to take out the Axis leaders in WWII and get on with life. Inestead we took 2 nukes and killed countless Japanese civilians. Perhaps the reason was a balance of public-opinion verses getting the job done efficiantly. Now that was WWII and things have changed dramatically since then. Urban warfare involoved blowing holes in roofs and taking buildings one by one in the WWII era. Now we have MOUT and urban operations are fought more stealthfully, on a smaller scale, and more effectively.

It is quite abvious to me that the militarys of the world are moving away from large scale warfare. Lets just hope the US doesnt attempt to interfere with China''s invasion of Taiwan. Navy SEALs cant repel full scale invasions. We might just become China''s farmland 20 years from now.

I understand why open assassination might bother some. Yes it does happen, and governments try to cover it up. Its who orders the assassinations and the reasons why they do it that matters. Seeing an administration with strong ties to crimminal activity just leaving the White House makes me wonder how much corruption is really up there. We may indeed end up being run entirely by the mafia and corrupt politicians some day down the road. Thats what we need to worry about.
 
2001-01-30 11:11:07 PM  
How are they gonna make us farmland if we''re an irradiated wasteland? That''s the only way I can see any single power winning a war with us. I don''t know much about the Chinese military, but I assume the U.S. is still the best trained and equipped army in the world. I would like to see some information to the contrary, though.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report