THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS APPEARED IN THE RECORD ON March 5, 2003

No reaction in U.S. to
assassination talk


No one should be too surprised if one or more high level U.S. officials proposed the assassination of Saddam Hussein as an alternative to invading Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is considered by many Americans as a far less dangerous and cheaper option than waging a costly war that could harm thousands of innocent civilians. Those who oppose such a drastic and permanent method argue that the U.S. is a democracy, not some rogue nation oblivious to the rule of law and that furthermore, it would expose the U.S. to significant retribution. The controversy over a policy allowing for state imposed assassinations has also divided the president of the U.S.

According to Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald, on Jan. 7 President Bush confided to him on Air Force One that he would gladly have Saddam Hussein assassinated if he knew where he was and had good intelligence for a clear shot. Needless to say that the Republican senator was in full agreement with his president.

Just a few weeks ago, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declared "a well-placed rifle shot, or properly targeted laser-guided weapon, just might preclude the need for massing our forces on the border of a hostile rogue nation."

He too, was referring to Hussein. When questioned on the estimated price tag for a war against Iraq, he replied, "The cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that." When asked by reporters what he meant, Fleischer declared that a "regime change" remained Bush's objective and that "there existed many options to carry that out."

Last year, Vice-President Dick Cheney gave his public endorsement to Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian terrorists. His explanation was that the Israelis had every right to protect themselves by taking pre-emptive measures against organizations that were plotting suicide bomber attacks.

One can only wonder whether Fleischer was aware that the president's authority to order the assassination of foreign leaders has been banned since the mid-70's, ever since former president Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11905. The order was signed after congressional hearings uncovered several CIA-sponsored plots against foreign leaders. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan went further by extending the ban to anyone working for the U.S. government.

Granted, since the ban does not have the effect of a law - all it would take for Bush is to sign an executive order repealing Ford's order. Such candid assassination talk by government officials is all the more astonishing seeing how the U.S. suffered four presidential assassinations and each one by a lethal bullet.

The president's interest in assassinating Saddam Hussein can hardly be attributed to his underestimating the gravity of murder or to a luke warm attitude towards capital punishment. The United States remains one of the few countries, which proclaims capital punishment as an appropriate punishment for murder. Over, 131 executions took place in Texas while Bush was governor. Florida, where his brother happens to be Governor, is ranked third in the nation in the number of Death Row inmates (California is first, Texas is second) and third in the nation in number of executions. Just two weeks ago, Amos King was executed in Florida by lethal injection for the murder and rape of a 68-year-old woman 26 years ago. It is safe to say that for most Canadians, the mere suspicion of a cabinet minister advocating the assassination of any person, much less a foreign leader would provoke a major outcry. Had our Prime Minister made an identical statement to that of Bush, the opposition would have demanded his head on a silver platter. Not so in the United States where the president's popularity is unusually high, despite a faltering economy.

Canadians would have clamored that they didn't elect their Prime Minister to overthrow foreign governments, much less to assassinate their leaders no matter how viscous, cruel or corrupt they may be. Whatever their political stripes, most Canadians would agree that premeditated killing across borders without judicial due process is morally wrong. So how is that Bush's statement to Senator Fitzgerald never provoked the slightest public outrage? Not even the Democrats responded with self-serving indignation. At last count, the media still hasn't given him a pasting. The simple truth is that when it comes to terrorists, many Americans feel the same way as their president. As a result of a CBS-New York Times poll after the Sept. 11 attacks, it was established that 65 per cent of Americans were in favour of a federal policy that would authorize the U.S. government to assassinate people in foreign countries who commit terrorist acts.

Considering the present state of war euphoria in the U.S., Bush could easily rely on thousands of God-fearing citizens to accomplish his wish assuming they were provided the right opportunity. Of course, there are those who would argue that because of our political, cultural and legal differences, it is unlikely that Canadians would support any such policy. No doubt others would say that if we have a different attitude it is only because we are not confronted by the same national security problems. The mere fact that we have been spared from a terrorist attack of the likes of Sept.11 is another plausible explanation.

Whatever the reasons why Bush's statement never caused a ripple effect, one thing is clear, our American neighbours are accustomed to hearing allegations regarding their government's involvement in foreign coups and assassinations. Whether by bullet, poison or military cruise missile, the U.S. government and more particularly the CIA, has been suspected of having targeted a whole list of prominent individuals. A 347-page report made public in 1975 by the Senate intelligence committee reviews the allegations against CIA involvement in plots against seven foreign leaders. They include Congolese independence leader Patrice Lamumba, Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo and Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Questions of wartime and national security considerations aside, very few distinctions can be made between a mob imposed murder and a government sponsored assassination, even if they involved the likes of Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, under specific circumstances, several legal options are available to U.S. presidents in the event of a decision to order the killing of a foreign leader, and they all appear to be perfectly legal under U.S. law.

Next week, Part II: Legal issues