Should the U.S. government overturn the executive order banning assassinations.?

There are reasons and times when assassination is a proper tool of state. When the Egyptian scientist assisting Iraq in the development of their nuclear reactor would not respond to threats the Israeli government killed him in the streets. 20 additional scientists assisting Iraq soon followed. I think the law needs to be repealed but strict rules and procedures must be put into play.

It was Gerald Ford who dropped the ball by informing the press of "executive actions" after the Rockefeller Commission investigated intelligence abuses resulting from the House (Congressman Pike) and Senate (Senator Church) hearings. Plain and simple, this was nothing but a "limited hangout" in order that it would insulate the real nefarious acts that had occurred in the past. A "limited hangout" is simply revealing a less damaging act designed to distract the media, government and public from the more serious infractions by the National Security State. The old maxim to diffuse a situation---"Throw em' a bone"--- allows a sense of disclosure and catharsis for the parties mentioned above, so that those involved may plausible disclaim any involvement of leaked actions or documents. This was the intent by President Ford, the intelligence community and selected members of congress who were "in the Know", allowing them enough time to plug the leaks and silence the investigators and critics digging their heels into the Watergate fiasco.

To overturn the ban on executive assassinations is a moot point. The ban is only designed for written policy legislating assassinations at the executive branch level. I think most of us know that covert actions are done under the aegis of "plausible disclaim" or "plausible denial." To be succinct, if you don't know about it, or there is no written documentation implicating the parties involved, how do you prove it? At present, Special Operation groups or Operational Sub-groups engage mainly in this sordid affair; usually "sheep-dipped" military personel outside the purview of the respective regular military services. Most often these groups will use one of three methods to induce control over leaders, countries or even the corporate elites in the world at large: 1) Intimidation, 2) Coercian, 3) Termination. These three programs all fall under the "Nuetralization Program" and under "plausible disclaim" with no accountability attatched to those giving the orders.

Hitler had at least 17 foiled assassination attempts on him pretty early in the 1940's. If any of those had succeeded imagine how much nicer our history books would read. But he was allowed to live and went on killing 6-12 million people. We could've had Bin Laden sitting under a falling SCUD in 1999, but the beauracracies of this country were so worried about legal mumblings and having an attempt at arrest before the use of deadly force. So we just prepared for a day we assumed would come, while we knew he was planning for more bombings. Unfortunately September 11, 2001 came first. The CIA has been carrying out assassinations since it's first day in 1947, and the OSS it replaced was doing the work before them. Our government is responsible for keeping our people and way of life safe. If that means we have to kill someone we have cause to believe will kill us, then so be it. Unless there is a new ban that I have not heard of, the one you are refering, written up by Reagan, actually doesn't include military targets. So the CIA still has the authority to decide and execute that specific operation. And they should.

It would be naive to think that it doesn't happen because of an executive order. Covert operations are just that, unseen. Assassinations are generally low yield as far as effect and are more of payback or implied message, or a zealot's aberration. Not even the assassination of the most powerful man in the world, the president of the United States resulted in any major change or turmoil. Issuing the order to ban just indemnifies the heads of our government from blame, if someone gets caught.

What the public hears about is only what the government wants them to see. No one knows what the truth really is!

That Executive order is subject to interpretation and is just there to make the goody goodies happy. If you don't think it goes on, you are fooling yourself.

Yes. I believe that when everything is said and done, this covert action would serve its purpose and more importantly, would save many lives.

Absolutely,long overdue.Definitely would solve many problems!Can we say Venezuela!

I firmly believe that there are 'special teams' out there already doing things that no one will ever hear about....

just my 2 cents............

No.

I don't trust the government not to abuse such power.

It happens anyway but we sure don't have to make it worse by approving of it.