Should the law banning assasination of foreign leaders be repealed?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Options 1 and 3.....

[Lief 🗽]

No, of course not.

[opebo]

No.  It sounds nice in theory, but it is very bad PR.  Also why would something like the CIA be influenced by laws?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Also why would something like the CIA be influenced by laws?

Excellent point.......no need to repeal a law they may not be following anyway.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Yes, and Nicolas Sarkozy shuld be the first one on the list.

(But seriously: no it shouldn't be repealed.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

The only fact that someone seriously asks this question is frightening.

[JSojourner]

No, but with this caveat -- if this country is attacked and a "foreign leader" is responsible -- he may get taken out.  I know by "foreign leader" you are referring to heads of state.  But Osama bin Laden is a "foreign leader", too.  He is just the leader of a group or a movement, not a nation.

So take my "no" with a grain of salt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, but with this caveat -- if this country is attacked and a "foreign leader" is responsible -- he may get taken out.  I know by "foreign leader" you are referring to heads of state.  But Osama bin Laden is a "foreign leader", too.  He is just the leader of a group or a movement, not a nation.

So take my "no" with a grain of salt.

Bin Laden is an horrible human being, and I understand why so many Americans would like him to be assasinated. But that is not justice.
Bin Laden must be caught, extradited, tried, and sentenced. Then, if he will be sentenced to death, he must be legally executed. That is the only way for America to remain a freedom country, and not fall into barbarity.
Am I an idealist ? Maybe. Goehring, Goebbels, Eichman, etc... have been tried, and they didn't worth more than Bin Laden.

[Хahar 🤔]

No, but with this caveat -- if this country is attacked and a "foreign leader" is responsible -- he may get taken out.  I know by "foreign leader" you are referring to heads of state.  But Osama bin Laden is a "foreign leader", too.  He is just the leader of a group or a movement, not a nation.

So take my "no" with a grain of salt.

Bin Laden is an horrible human being, and I understand why so many Americans would like him to be assasinated. But that is not justice.
Bin Laden must be caught, extradited, tried, and sentenced. Then, if he will be sentenced to death, he must be legally executed. That is the only way for America to remain a freedom country, and not fall into barbarity.
Am I an idealist ? Maybe. Goehring, Goebbels, Eichman, etc... have been tried, and they didn't worth more than Bin Laden.

Come on. Those weren't really trials.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, but with this caveat -- if this country is attacked and a "foreign leader" is responsible -- he may get taken out.  I know by "foreign leader" you are referring to heads of state.  But Osama bin Laden is a "foreign leader", too.  He is just the leader of a group or a movement, not a nation.

So take my "no" with a grain of salt.

But as bin Laden is not a head of state he is not covered by the ban. Rendering this caveat completely moot and pointless.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, but with this caveat -- if this country is attacked and a "foreign leader" is responsible -- he may get taken out.  I know by "foreign leader" you are referring to heads of state.  But Osama bin Laden is a "foreign leader", too.  He is just the leader of a group or a movement, not a nation.

So take my "no" with a grain of salt.

Bin Laden is an horrible human being, and I understand why so many Americans would like him to be assasinated. But that is not justice.
Bin Laden must be caught, extradited, tried, and sentenced. Then, if he will be sentenced to death, he must be legally executed. That is the only way for America to remain a freedom country, and not fall into barbarity.
Am I an idealist ? Maybe. Goehring, Goebbels, Eichman, etc... have been tried, and they didn't worth more than Bin Laden.

Come on. Those weren't really trials.

The only thing that counts is that in a free country, nobody can be killed without a trial, even if it's not a "real" one.
By the way, I personally think nobody should be killed at all, but that isn't the point...

[??????????]

Yes, their are times when it could serve a valuable purpose.

[War on Want]

Yes, their are times when it could serve a valuable purpose.

I am sure we could find a loophole to the law if it really became necessary. That or just repeal it if it became necessary.

[dead0man]

There is a giant loophole, Bill Clinton found it.  Just lob cruise missiles at "military targets" that coincidentally have the dude inside of it that you want to off.  I'm not sure how that is different than a sniper round or a polonium-210 cocktail, but apparently it is.

[Scam of God]

You forgot to add a fourth option: the CIA needs to be forcibly disbanded, as an instrument of State terrorism.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There is a giant loophole, Bill Clinton found it.  Just lob cruise missiles at "military targets" that coincidentally have the dude inside of it that you want to off.  I'm not sure how that is different than a sniper round or a polonium-210 cocktail, but apparently it is.

Another loophole is just to arrange for some locals to take out the guy rather than doing it directly.

[JSojourner]

No, but with this caveat -- if this country is attacked and a "foreign leader" is responsible -- he may get taken out.  I know by "foreign leader" you are referring to heads of state.  But Osama bin Laden is a "foreign leader", too.  He is just the leader of a group or a movement, not a nation.

So take my "no" with a grain of salt.

But as bin Laden is not a head of state he is not covered by the ban. Rendering this caveat completely moot and pointless.

Right.  I agree.

And if capturing him happens, great.  Lock him up and throw away the key.  But if a sniper has him in his sights, I would say, "pull the trigger".

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ackmadinnerjacket threatens the US once again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

Sure you guys dont want this law repealed?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ackmadinnerjacket threatens the US once again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

Sure you guys dont want this law repealed?

The President of Iran is powerless and Ahmadinejad is not a threath. He cannot do anything.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ackmadinnerjacket threatens the US once again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

Sure you guys dont want this law repealed?

The President of Iran is powerless and Ahmadinejad is not a threath. He cannot do anything.

Yes, Yes, the clerics run most of the show, but I wouldn't say he's powerless.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ackmadinnerjacket threatens the US once again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

Sure you guys dont want this law repealed?

The President of Iran is powerless and Ahmadinejad is not a threath. He cannot do anything.

Yes, Yes, the clerics run most of the show, but I wouldn't say he's powerless.

Ok, not powerless, but he's not a decider. He's even constitutionally put away from military, foreign policy and security matters. Also, even ministers appointed by him were approved personally (and many of them were in fact but on this position) by the Supreme Leader.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ackmadinnerjacket threatens the US once again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

Sure you guys dont want this law repealed?

The President of Iran is powerless and Ahmadinejad is not a threath. He cannot do anything.

Yes, Yes, the clerics run most of the show, but I wouldn't say he's powerless.

Ok, not powerless, but he's not a decider. He's even constitutionally put away from military, foreign policy and security matters. Also, even ministers appointed by him were approved personally (and many of them were in fact but on this position) by the Supreme Leader.

Ok, I'm for offing him too

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Do you really believe that killing Khamenei would make any difference? I don't think so. He would be quickly replaced by another hard-core conservative ayatollah and system remains unchanged.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't believe that people who believe in freedom, and want to bring it to the entire world could just think about killing a person without a trial.

[Scam of God]

I can't believe that people who believe in freedom, and want to bring it to the entire world could just think about killing a person without a trial.

Your mistake comes in presuming that American conservatives are primarily, or even remotely, interested in freedom. They are not. They are interested, in the social sphere, in conserving what they take to be essential traditions, founded on collectively-based values; in economics, maintaining their status; and in foreign policy, intervening where necessary to maintain American hegemony. Not one of these things has to do with liberty as I understand and live it.