[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at lists.cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Cameron Tidwell <jct34 at cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 03:08:05 GMT
Lines: 45

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <HzJia.1578$J8.1451 at twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Cameron Tidwell 
> <jct34 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Almost. Bush considered rescinding the rule but didn't. Now, here's 
>>where my memory goes fuzzy.  He decided he wouldn't need to rescind 
>>them.  (The executive orders are 11905 and 12306).  Anyway, 
>>assassination isn't really defined in those orders.
> 
>     Legally what one executive orders another can rescind. These are not set 
> in stone as a law would be (at least from the changing it 

That's right.  Bush could have repealed 11905 and 12306, but he didn't. 
  So why look for a loophold like he did?  Probably because he thought 
repealing the assassination EO would earn him some heat that he didn't 
want.  Since, I'm posting again, let me clarify my last post and its 
relation to JMS's comment.  So, yeah, I claim the EO's weren't repealed. 
  But I agree with JMS that Bush would have no problem assassinating 
someone--Bush just wouldn't call it that.  He would say the killing of a 
combatant (and Bush I guess considers anyone affiliated with 
terrorism--and he's assuming Hussein is--a combatant whether there is a 
war or not) is not assassination.  So instead of repealing the EO's, 
Bush decided to endorse a really broad interpretation of 'enemy 
combatant'.  This allows him to for all intents and purposes assassinate 
people while not claiming to be doing such.

Of course, now, even if we reject the looseness of Bush's definition of 
'enemy combatant', Bush attempting to kill Saddam isn't going to count 
as assassination (at least not any attempts that took place after the 
war had begun).  Since the US is now at war, I don't know of anyone who 
wouldn't count the top guy in the Iraqi military (Saddam Hussein) as an 
enemy combatant.  This doesn't address justification.  This just 
addresses what counts as assassination.  Obviously an unjust war can't 
be justification for killing a enemy combatant like Hussein.  That 
unjust war would though prevent it--in everyone's eyes just about--from 
counting as assassination.  I haven't said here whether the war is just 
or whether killing a leader outside the context of a war can be 
justified.  That's a different topic.

Rather than anticipate all misinterpretations that could come up, I'll 
just conclude with a disclaimer as I've been accused of being pro-war 
before: I'm anti-war, and I don't like the loose definition of 
combatants.  I also don't like the phrase "war on terrorism".


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 07 Apr 2003 06:07:25 GMT
Lines: 22

>Of course, now, even if we reject the looseness of Bush's definition of 
>'enemy combatant', Bush attempting to kill Saddam isn't going to count 
>as assassination (at least not any attempts that took place after the 
>war had begun).  

Black-humor aside to this discussion...I was reading Harper's on the plane the
other day, and there was a story about how the Department of Transportation was
requesting the ability to classify all commercial aircraft passengers as
"potential terrorists" in order to facilitate background checks which would not
otherwise be legal.


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)