Is Assassination by Another Name The Same?

Our most successful program in our endless wars seems to be our drone program…unfortunately we are also killing civilians at an alarming rate….the US odes have a history of assassinating political leaders in the past but that program was abandoned in the 1970’s…..abandoned with Ford’s EO #11905…….

In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled “Restrictions on Intelligence Activities,” Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled “Prohibition on Assassination,” states: “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

The ban, however, did not prevent the Reagan administration from dropping bombs on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s home in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. troops.

What made me think about this EO from the past was the statement issued by L’il Kim of North Korea……

North Korea has accused the United States and South Korea of a plot to kill leader Kim Jong Un.

North Korean state news agency KCNA released a report Friday that claims intelligence agencies in the U.S. and South Korea conspired with a “hideous terrorist group” to “commit bomb terrorism targeting the supreme leadership,” CNN reports. It says the plot was “recently uncovered and smashed.”

The document says a North Korean citizen was involved and the assassination would have involved “biochemical substances including radioactive substance and nano poisonous substance.”

But then the question becomes since Ford’s EO is the US in the business of assassinating political leaders?

You tell me.

Some of the most notorious of the CIA’s operations to kill world leaders were those targeting the late Cuban president, Fidel Castro. Attempts ranged from snipers to imaginative plots worthy of spy movie fantasies, such as the famous exploding cigars and a poison-lined scuba-diving suit.

But although the CIA attempts proved fruitless in the case of Castro, the US intelligence agency has since 1945 succeeded in deposing or killing a string of leaders elsewhere around the world – either directly or, more often, using sympathetic local military, locally hired criminals or pliant dissidents.

Source: The CIA has a long history of helping to kill leaders around the world | US news | The Guardian

Now the question is… L’il Kim onto to something here or just blowing hot air?

Is there a drone with L’il Kim’s name?

Did the US ever abandon the timely art of assassination?  Of course not.

These days the US does not employ many covert operatives to do the dirty work…..instead they call up a drone…..this can go a long way of keeping their hands clean (so to speak)……

The first step in examining the legality of assassinating known or suspected terrorists through the use of unmanned armed vehicles (UAVs) is to decide whether such killings could be classified as part of an armed conflict.  If they are considered as part of an armed conflict, according to international law, the rules of armed conflict would apply; otherwise the laws of self-defence would be relevant.

According to the Geneva Conventions and customary humanitarian law, armed conflict only applies when two or more States are involved.  When the United States defines its campaign against terrorists as a global conflict, this designation is not based on the correct definition of war as characterized by international law but on America’s own interpretation of its effort to eradicate terrorism.  Only two or more States can legally, in the strictest terms, engage in war, not a State against individuals scattered around the globe.

Source: Assassination By Drones

The question remains… assassination by another name the same?

Please you thought……

18 thoughts on “Is Assassination by Another Name The Same?

    1. Boy.. talk about biased history… was that link written by North Korea?

  1. I dunno.. Ford’s EO seems very clear… no political assassinations. As far as I know the drones have been killing terrorists and those that support terrorism… hence they are military targets in the War on Terrorism. Otherwise we could have just lobbed something on Assad by now. I certainly cannot speculate what might go on unknown to the public… nor would I think anyone else has some insider info on possible political assassinations, other than the right wing conspiracy buffs.
    Seems to me as soon as Kim of North Korea does something nasty he crosses the line and becomes a military target. Besides.. why target Kim for any reason without regard on who might be replacing him first. That’s sort of like invading Iraq, kicking Saddam’s ass, and having no plan for what to do after. Oh.. wait.. that’s what we usually do.

    1. Reagan and his cronies found a way around the EO…and it has been used ever since…..the whole nat. security thing about preserving the integrity of the homeland….a paraphrase but you get the jest….chuq

  2. It seems the US gov’t is not very accomplished at assassination. Fidel lived a long life as did many dictators, thumbing their nose any plots the U.S may have had.

      1. I imagine so. Our bark is worse than our bite, though we did take out Osama.

      2. There are bunch of civilians all over the Middle East that might disagree…we are better at killing them….chuq

      3. Well, it seems our MO is to alert them the day before and tell their military to get the hell out and take their weapons with them so that we can drop our Tomahawks without harming anything

      4. A sound plan that has proven to be as worthless as the rest of their “plans” for the ME……chuq

  3. SIGH… After perusing all the content, and the comments, I can only reiterate words I’ve used before, in speaking about the shenanigans of those who engage in political behavior, on any level of participation, best expressed succinctly by H. L. Mencken, to wit: “I regard all government as evil, and trying to reform it a waste of time.”….

    After 66 years of watching those who do engage in it, on every level of our culture, I can only agree….

    gigoid, the dubious

  4. Is Bin Laden really dead, I wonder? Am I the only one who wonders that, I wonder?
    What about the airport assassination of the brother of the Korean leader? Was that the DPRK, or another power who just got the wrong man, I wonder?
    I love conspiracies.
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. I think it was the DPRK….Osama? His family has enough cash to keep him n ice….conspiracies are fun sometimes….cjuq

    2. I think all the problems in the world are with both the Clintons. In fact, before they were both born, their ancestors likely started the Civil War… and the demise of 8 track tapes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.