Two things that bother me: first, it's illegal for the US to attempt to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly in a non-declared war. Can anyone forsee an impeachment of Bush based on this should the war go poorly? Second, Rumsfeld keeps talking about a massive strike unprecendented in military history. That's worrying since the biggest bombing campaigns in history all killed upwards of 100,000 people (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). I know he isn't saying he means to kill hundreds of thousands (or at least I hope not), but I wish he'd have studied his military history a bit more. G.
Saddam may be the president of Iraq but he is also the commander of the Iraqi Armed forces which makes him a legitimate target.
the law about executing foreign leaders is an Executive Order put in place by Pres. Ford, it is not legal statute. Plus there is an argument that this doesn't apply during war time (i've never read the E.O., so I don't know). If it is still illegal during war time (which I don't think it is or that law can be circumvented), Bush can secretly revoke the E.O. If the E.O. is applicible to war time, you can simply target "leadership targets" (buildings). If Saddam was in one of those, that's bad luck for him. We didn't mean to assasinate him *wink*
Executing a head of state of a sovereign country is a violation of international law unless it takes place as part of a war. The question that int'l law people (well, at least the non-American ones) will be asking themselves for the foreseeable future is if Saddam was killed in the first strike, whether that would count as war or not.
would be an even more interesting question if he were hit in the first strike and the US said "objective accomplished, we're going home" and didn't launch the second attack we're seeing today. the US could argue that the war was about removing Saddam from power and when he died the war's objective had been accomplished. others could argue that the US declared war only to kill Saddam and say that's really just seeking a loophole to the assassination rules.
Rumsfeld has repeatedly demonstrated that the route between his brain and his mouth is in need of repair and subject to sudden delays, but I don't think he meant unprecedented = massive. I think he was referring to the promised effectiveness of the new satellite guided bombs, etc..
Ah, well, thanks for answering this. I suppose that Bush wouldn't even have to be so secret about revoking it. He hardly seems to be a shrinking violet when it comes to being an international scofflaw. The notion of that an assassination could be the first and last strike in a 'war' aimed at removing a particular leader raises the interesting notion that Bush wouldn't have to revoke the E.O. in order to carry out an assassination, just to opt for a 'police action' etc. and go ahead with it. Maybe I should become a lawyer after all! Thanks for the nice rational answers! You guys are great! G.