Thanks, that fits well as an

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 05:28:23 +0000

Thanks, that fits well as an example.

CRS on Exec order 12333:

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:30:55 +0000

In reply to US War Crimes or ‘Normalized Deviance’

CRS on Exec order 12333:

What does the assassination ban in E.O. 12333 cover? The term
“assassination” is not defined in E.O. 12333, nor was it defined in the predecessor orders.4
In general, it appears that an assassination may be viewed as an intentional killing of a
targeted individual committed for political purposes. However, the scope of the term seems
to be the subject of differing interpretations, both generally, and depending upon whether the
killing at issue took place in time of war or in time of peace. For example, it might be
contended that the Ford executive order and its successors were responding to concerns
raised with respect to killing of foreign officials or heads of state, and may not have been
intended to extend to killing of others. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the
focus of theChurchCommittee’sinvestigation, to which the Ford executive order responded.
In his “Special Message to the Congress Proposing Legislation To Reform the United States
Foreign Intelligence Community,” (Special Message to Congress) delivered Feb. 18, 1976,
accompanying the issuance of E.O. 11905, President Ford did not refer to the assassination
ban in the order explicitly, but did indicate that he would “support legislation making it a
crime to assassinate or attempt or conspire to assassinate a foreign official in peacetime.”5
President Carter made only a passing reference to the assassination ban in his statement
accompanying issuance of E.O. 12036,6
and did not refer to it in his remarks on signing the executive order. Nor did President Reagan reference the assassination ban in his “Statement
on United States Intelligence Activities” of Dec. 4, 1981, accompanying the issuance of E.O.
12333.7

Others might argue for a broader interpretation of the assassination ban, contending that
any killing of a targeted individualfor political purposes would be within the assassination ban
in the sweep of the Ford, Carter, and Reagan executive orders. Alternatively, it might be
suggested that the assassination ban’sinclusion within an executive order on U.S. intelligence
activities may serve to distinguish it from, and limit its applicability to, a use of military force
in response to a foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil or against U.S. nationals. Such an
argument might place reliance on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognizes
that nations have an inherent right of self-defense:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
until theSecurityCouncil hastakenmeasures necessary tomaintain international peace and
security. Measures taken by Members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority
and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time
such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
The right of the United States to defend itself against armed attack has been the focus of
some of the recent debate as the United States considers its options in responding to the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.8

It is in the nature of

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:06:16 +0000

In reply to US War Crimes or ‘Normalized Deviance’

It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the past.

dagblog - Comments for "US War Crimes or ‘Normalized Deviance’"

Thanks, that fits well as an

CRS on Exec order 12333:

It is in the nature of