	25 May 2012 Businessmen Make Lousy Presidents My experience with vulture capitalism is limited. A vulture could not make even a snack out of my capital. I don'… Read More.
	23 May 2012 Is Mitt Romney Count Dracula? In the end, it won't be about who raises the most money. It won't be about who ate a dog or kept one on the … Read More.
	18 May 2012 Poll Results Are “Massaged” Before They Are Released I promise you this is not another one of my columns about how polls suck. Point One: You already know polls suck.… Read More.

Icing Gadhafi

Instead of waging a risky and costly war in Libya, why don't we just take out Moammar Gadhafi? And I don't mean to dinner.

This war is going to cost us a fortune, it puts our military personnel at risk, and innocent civilians are in peril of death or injury through collateral damage. So why don't we just ice the guy? Grease him, snuff him or, yes, assassinate him?

Contrary to popular belief, there is no federal law that makes the assassination of a foreign leader outside the boundaries of the United States illegal.

There are executive orders against it, but executive orders are simply rulings by a president, and any president can amend or set aside the executive order of a previous president.

In 1976, Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905 that forbade the assassination of foreign leaders for "political" reasons. Ford did this after revelations that the United States had conducted a series of botched and sometimes hilarious (poisoned cigars) assassination attempts against Fidel Castro.

In 1978, Jimmy Carter reaffirmed the policy, and in 1981, Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 stating that "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

And since no president has since overturned that executive order, it is still in effect. Except that it doesn't really mean anything. After a Berlin nightclub bombing by Libyan agents in 1986 in which U.S. soldiers were killed, President Reagan unleashed eight F-111 bombers against Libyan President Gadhafi's personal compound in Tripoli.

Although the planes dropped 60 tons of explosives, Gadhafi escaped harm, though we did, unfortunately, kill his 15-month-old daughter. One U.S. pilot was lost in the raid.

The Reagan administration denied this was an assassination attempt, however, because "administration legal counselors advised that the strike could be justified as self-defense and a preemptive military attack." Such deaths, the White House lawyers ruled, even the death of a head of state, "could not be considered political assassination."

Which is why it is always good to have a lawyer on your payroll.

But in early 2001, Bob Barr, then a Republican representative from Georgia, felt that the executive orders were too restrictive and introduced the Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001 that would nullify them.

"Our federal government should never put the lives of our troops at risk when there is an alternative method of accomplishing the same goals," Barr said.

In other words, Barr wanted to bring assassination out of the shadows and make it legal.

The bill went nowhere, but it didn't matter. Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush signed a "finding" ordering the CIA to use "lethal covert operations" to kill Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida.

Why would that not be an attempt at assassination?

Because, the White House decided, "the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime" and does not apply to "action against terrorists."

So there is ample precedent for U.S. presidents to try to whack people.

And since it is clearly "wartime" in our endless war against terror, and since Gadhafi is a terrorist — - he was behind not only the Berlin bombing but also the blowing up of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, murdering 270 people, including 190 Americans — targeting Gadhafi for death would be as simple as writing a parking ticket.

Sunday night, a U.S. cruise missile slammed into Gadhafi's compound in Tripoli — maybe this guy should get an unlisted address? — but Gadhafi was once again unharmed, and the United States said it had not been targeting him.

Why not? It is likely that with Gadhafi dead, his government would collapse and rebel forces could take over the country. Why risk numerous U.S., allied and civilian deaths to achieve a rebel victory when all we need to do is rub out one guy?

"Equal and exact justice to all" is what Thomas Jefferson said America promised.

And with all the innocent blood on Gadhafi's hands, equal and exact justice is exactly what America would be giving him.

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Why don't we just stay the hell out of Libya's affairs entirely? Why do we even need to target the leader of a sovereign country for assassination, much less subject that country to unprovoked air and missile strikes? Our president didn't even bother to obtain a Congressional resolution, much less 17 such resolutions from the U.N. like Bush had before going into Iraq. Not that it matters - the United Nations has no authority to "authorize" missions by the US or NATO military forces. The Arab League, for its part, has already turned against this conflict.

Gadhafi hasn't bothered anyone for a long time, at least not until his own people tried to overthrow him. He certainly hasn't bothered anyone outside his own country in some time. I don't know about the nightclub bombing, but I do know his government apologized for the Pan Am bombing and paid money to the families of the victims. I realize that doesn't make it all better, but what more could Libya's government do after-the-fact?

Also, remember that he got out of the WMD business after the US overthrew Saddam, as Gadhafi feared he'd be next. (So much for the claim that the Iraq War didn't accomplish anything.) Gadhafi is not Saddam, not by a long shot.

Killing him wouldn't accomplish anything or cause his government to collapse. One of his generals or his son or whatever would just take over for him. Besides, even if his regime did implode, there's a better-than-even chance the guys who take over afterward will be linked to Al Queda and/or otherwise be worse than the guy who was overthrown.

Besides that, how exactly would we knock off the guy - even if we knew where he was? A black ops team? Air strikes like we're doing now? Sounds to me like a recipe for collateral damage and putting American soldiers at risk.

Bad, bad idea. Just get our military assets away from Libya entire and let the other NATO countries handle this if they think it's so gosh-darned important. What else does the French air force have to do with its time?

Comment: #1
Posted by: Matt
Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:37 PM