Legality of CIA assassination: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Legality of CIA assassination » Legality of CIA assassination

Legality of CIA assassination

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/02/09 - 12:48 AM: Subject: Legality of CIA assassination	#1
I've been disturbed about the recent Predator drone attacks into Pakistan. For most American media that I see, it doesn't even seem to bother anyone. Pakistan publicly protests the attacks as a violation of their territory and risking upsetting the progress they have been making against militants. I can't find where the legality of these kind of actions fit. I know that political assassinations were tolerated and even romanticized during the cold war. Spies were cool, so nobody tried to justify what they did -- in the movies, the motives of the villain were universally "bad". Maybe the majority of cases could be covered by "imminent threat" and trying to avoid revealing national secrets during the process. But with these drones, it seems that the CIA has taken over part of the role of the military, and strategically dodged the "War Powers act", (which would call for a vote from congress and a formal declaration of war if it were human pilots doing the job instead of remotely controlled aircraft). If it is legally acceptable to assassinate suspected "militants" inside the borders of a country that hasn't given explicit consent, then I would expect it to be universally acceptable. To make up an example, if China flew their version of a Predator-drone into American territory and assassinate an American citizen as part of their "war on dissent", then would it be generally acceptable to the American people that some public statements of protest were all that was done? It seems a continuation of the Bush doctrine -- where he even excused the assassination of an American citizen because, being in the company of the "enemy" meant he had nullified any constitutional protection. It was a disturbing statement at the time. The government would then have a legal loophole which they could declare anyone "the enemy" and dispense with them as they see fit with no oversight or responsibility. Now it seems that the policy is being continued, with the potential of expansion -- that the US government could attack citizens within its own borders or could escalate violence as long as it was under the role of the CIA instead of the military. So, where is their legal justification? What part of international law or constitution gives the CIA or any other intelligence organization a license to kill outside the law and outside the rules of war?
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Chops
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2005

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1129

Posted 03/02/09 - 01:13 AM:	#2
Political assassination was romanticized during the Cold War? You read too many spy novels. The US policy during the Cold War prohibited the assassination of political figures. This policy, officially, has never changed. Targeting of terrorist organization leadership is generally subsumed into military operations and thus does not qualify as "assassination." That is, it is considered functionally no different from the accepted military policy of targeting officers in an enemy army in order to reduce or eliminate the ability of that army to wage war. Could you post a link detailing the strikes you are talking about? I was not aware that CIA fielded Predator drones, let alone armed Predator drones. As far as I am aware, that equipment falls under Air Force jurisdiction. In any case, regardless of who is holding the joystick, striking inside Pakistani airspace without the permission of Pakistan is, indeed, a violation of international law. That said, one should look careful at Pakistan's reaction. Protesting these incursions publicly while doing nothing to stop them may well be the Pakistani government's way of saving face in front of its populace while still allowing the US to strike at its adversaries that flee across Pakistan's poorly defended border.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/02/09 - 02:20 AM:	#3
First, here is the report of the Predator drone attack. Most of that news has been pushed out of the way after Diane Feinstein mentioned (oops) that the drones were being launched from within Pakistan. Now the new CIA chief says that ... whatever they have been doing so far ... will continue. There were some stories that people found the Predator drones on Google Earth, on a Pakistani Air Base, but that turns out to have been speculation or a hoax. The "no political assassination", from what I understand, only applies to heads of state -- but even that didn't deter probably the only well-documented instance: the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro in the 1960s. If the Pakistani government is covertly allowing the US to use its missiles against a common enemy, isn't that a human rights violation that makes America just as culpable?
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.