IMO if they had not made this ruling then Saddam could have been taken out with out a war. The Clinton administration could have also taken Osama when he was offered up during Clinton's presidency.
2006-12-08 04:56:11 · 5 answers · asked by joevette 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If the ruling doesn't protect Osama why did the Clinton admin pass on him when he was offered by the Saudi's?
2006-12-08 05:06:50 · update #1
yes, it looks great on paper but that doesn't mean the US won't participate in political assassinations. That's why we have the CIA and Special Operations Forces. Clinton screwed up on the Osama situation because he couldn't find any legal grounds to detain him. Remember, Clinton was a populist and he was very concerned about polls and his image at home and abroad. Hell, if I was a sociopath who was president, I'd be concerned as well.
2006-12-08 05:13:58 · answer #1 · answered by dasuberding 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Its a slippery slope-- how does it look and how does it affect our moral standing if we advocate/allow/legitimise polical assasinations. Our pres. would then be open game to same.
OBL is not a head of state- he is fair game. And Clinton didn't have him taken out because the intelligence folks weren't certain enuf on his location + were worried about collateral damage and political fallout from killing another head of state. In one instance, a Prince of some sort was in the same location.
2006-12-08 05:07:04 · answer #2 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saddam yes-
However the CIA has been trying to kill/capture Osama for a long time- he is not a leader of a country- he is a leader of a terrorist organization- I do believe he was and is fair game...no laws protecting him.
2006-12-08 05:01:58 · answer #3 · answered by ÐIESEŁ ÐUB 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. When I'm king, assassinations will increase in number.
2006-12-08 05:06:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes if not think about how many people we would have killed already
2006-12-08 05:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Lab Runner 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋