Is It Legal to Try to Kill Qaddafi?

NATO has escalated its bombing campaign around the Libyan capital of Tripoli in an effort to bring the conflict to a close and has destroyed one of Muammar al-Qaddafi's favored retreats. A senior NATO military official told CNN on June 9 that Qaddafi was a legitimate target of the bombing campaign, but declined to comment on whether he was being deliberately targeted. Is it legal to deliberately try to kill the leader of a sovereign state?

The law is vague. The long-standing reluctance of militaries to engage in the targeted killing of heads of state is based more on custom than codified regulation. (It's not really in the interest of presidents and prime ministers for that sort of thing to become common practice.)

The closest thing in international law to a ban on assassination is the 1907 Hague Convention on the laws of war, which prohibits signatories from attempting "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army." Treachery is a tough thing to prove in court and in any case, might not apply to this situation: Qaddafi has been given ample warning and a clear message that NATO and the United Nations want him out.

Moreover, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizing the Libya intervention allows U.N. member states to "take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." While coalition forces haven't yet declared Qaddafi an official target as part of these measures, they've also made it clear that his personal safety is not a consideration. As British Defense Minister Liam Fox put it, "There's a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether you would go ahead with targeting." The official who spoke with CNN described Qaddafi as being part of the "command and control" structure of the Libyan military, meaning that taking him out would fall under the mandate of protecting civilians.

What about U.S. law? An executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 -- updating an earlier order by President Gerald Ford -- states that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." (The order followed embarrassing revelations of CIA plots to kill foreign leaders such as Congolese President Patrice Lumumba and Cuban leader Fidel Castro.) But the order doesn't define "assassination" and, in truth, hasn't had much effect on U.S. policy. Since 9/11, the United States has repeatedly targeted senior al Qaeda leaders for assassination, culminating in May's raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Even before the war on terror began, the targeting of foreign leaders was hardly unheard of. Reagan himself targeted one of Qaddafi's compounds during airstrikes on Libya in 1986, killing the Libyan leader's adopted daughter. U.S. airstrikes targeted Saddam Hussein's compounds during the early days of the Iraq war.

The deliberately vague "command and control" language is also not new. In 1999, following an airstrike on Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's Belgrade residence, Eric Holder then U.S. deputy attorney general, argued that it did not violate the rule against assassination: "Bombs are dropped on command and control facilities," he said in a news conference quoted by Canada's Globe and Mail. "There has not been any attempt on the part of the United States to target any particular individual."

So while the killing of foreign leaders is generally frowned upon and rarely admitted to, Qaddafi probably shouldn't be counting on the law to protect him.

Thanks to Micah Zenko, fellow for conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Matthew Waxman, associate professor at Columbia Law School.

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

ZORRO

4:08 PM ET

June 10, 2011

Would a US President Be a Legal Target?

Would an Israeli Prime Minister? Somehow I suspect not.

That does not mean that they shouldn't be legal targets, just that double standards are as ever troubling.

PHUKKNEOCON

4:27 AM ET

June 11, 2011

Al Qaeda in Libya

There were several attempts in the 90's, David Shayler, former MI5:

"the Libyan had asked for funds to lead a group of Islamic Extremists in an attempted coup, which would involve the assassination of Colonel Qadhafi, the head of the Libyan state."

http://cryptome.org/shayler021600.htm

Read this MI6 report:

"5 Libyan colonels in charge of plans to overthrow QADAHFI,
scheduled to coincide with the next General Peoples Congress in
February. Coup will start with unrest in Tripoli, Misratah and
Benghazi. Coup plotters are not associated with Islamic fundamentalists.
MUSA QADHAR AL-DAM murdered by coup plotters in June. Attempt to
assassinate QADAHFI in August thwarted by security police.
This revolution is operation ajax applied to Libya. MI6 and CIA tried long ago to topple Gaddafi by covertly supporting Al Qaeda extremists. Now they do it overtly."

http://cryptome.org/qadahfi-plot.htm

GRANT

3:32 PM ET

U.S presidents are rarely so

U.S presidents are rarely so foolish as to go into communications buildings likely to be bombed by opposing forces and you can't make the argument that (in the current security environment) bombing the White House would be legitimate use of force. Also few leaders get to be as disliked as Qaddafi.

SAMJENKINS

10:07 PM ET

i don't think so

its just so bad to go to any country and try to kill someone.. they have done it few times in the post but it just not acceptable... bad bad

MARYTHWAITES

10:21 PM ET

June 12, 2011

I agree with you

It just doesnt seem right to me to barge into another country to kill someone. But I guess it's one of those things that there is no right or wrong answer because you'll never have universal agreement on this.

COMETLINEAR

1:47 AM ET

Is *anything* legal in war?

War begins where the law ends.

What's the punishment for breaking the rules of war? Death?

ANA KINUKAWA

8:34 AM ET

June 14, 2011

war

I agree completely with you. The minute a war is declared men lose all reasoning capacity. We become animals.

How much long will it take for humans to realize wars are worthless?

THOMAS JANETH

6:24 AM ET

Libya

Muammar Qaddafi carried his cross all alone within this outrage. The blood of his loved ones are on NATO's palms and also the nations of Africa that merely stood by. Qaddafi should take his crown and fling it back in their faces! What good is a crown as a result of these kinds of cowards?

Exactly where were the African countries who reaped the benefit from his guidance in the past? He has every right to tell the whole continent of Africa to go to hell! They can all become enslaved under U.S. AFRICOM since none of them came to his aid. This could have been Iran's and Pakistan's Finest Hour because Qaddafi's minority enemies were certainly theirs, as well.

Now, Qaddafi is free to reach out to his friends, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and anybody else who actually stuck their necks out on his behalf. I suppose Iran and China can EARN their place by selling Libya any weapons systems that Qaddafi wants.

Unfortunately, Libya isn't a vital interest to China or Iran. It will be a struggle for Qaddafi to rearm and reorient his nation away from pure Jamahiriya and towards a more militaristic posture for the near future.

Eventually, Qaddafi has got to have the ability to project power in the Mediterranean to let the E.U. and NATO know that he can bring war to any aggressor. Iran has developed its own small attack submarine, the Ghadir-class boats. Gathafi can help finance an Iranian version of the old Soviet Golf-class IRBM submarine so that both nations will finally be able to deliver a credible retaliation to NATO aggression. Unlike the Soviet Golf-class, an Iranian-Libyan missile sub could carry three MRBM's with FAE warheads, thereby avoiding the astronomical monetary and political cost of nuclear-tipped missiles. Iran already has missiles that could be redeveloped and made ready as the submarine is developed.

FORLORNEHOPE

12:23 PM ET

Irony?

This is a joke, right?

EMILYCHAVEZ

12:38 PM ET

Finally the time is here

Finally the UN has shown it has guts and teeth; about time. As for the Arab League; cowards as usual no guts or backbone and dithering already. UN military should be used in this conflict; after all it's time they stopped posing and did a job of work. The problem in Libya will be if and when tribes; like Iraq start to fight amongsth themselves karmaloop codes. As for Gadaffi, surely one cruise missile through the living room window would do us all a favour; to allow him to remain in Libya is trouble. As for Russia and China and India abstaining; what does that say about their respect for freedom and democracy; not much at all. The Arab League are already waning; shaking in their boots; gutless as usual; could this be because that most Arab leaders care not on jot about their people as they also are indeed despot dictators or ruling non democratic families who rule with an iron fist. I notice how quiet the Scottish Parliament has been; Lockerbie or have they forgotten about that.

ROMAN GIL

1:09 PM ET

Who Is Going To Pay?

Who is Going to Pay for The Global Interventions? The Status Quo Partisan Politics Must End.

Instead of engaging in distracting partisan politics with the status quo politicians that have ruined America, we need to focus on the mortal economic and social dangers that we are now facing because of the ruinous policies of these politicians.

We have to end the wars and occupations immediately and all foreign affairs, including foreign aid and military alliances. Europe and Korea among many other countries are rich enough to defend themselves. We now have 3 Muslim wars, plus NATO and the rest of the military waste, all follies are financed by debt that we will be forced to pay.

In my blog, I expose that over 50% of the total USA military forces are war contractors and that 2/3 of their employees are foreigners. We have wasted $5 Trillion dollars fighting Osama's war strategy to bankrupt America as they did the Soviet Union by bringing it into permanent war in the Muslim world. The war contractors and the other special interest groups are making profits from trillions of debt dollars that we'll be forced to pay.

America cannot afford to spend debt money on global empire dreams. The 2011 national debt, national current account balance and other economic indicators show that America has a negative net worth of -$58 Trillion. This is the truth that globalists are concealing and is the inevitable result of the globalist export of America's industry to Communist China and other cheap labor countries plus all the ruinous policies of the two globalist controlled parties that now require that the Federal government must beg and borrow $1.65 Trillion a year to add to the present national debt of close to $15 Trillion.

TEN Generations of Americans cannot pay the 2011 national debt, but the politicians still borrow and spend. 47% of American households are too poor to pay income taxes. The American industrial base is only 9% of the economy. There are not enough taxpayers to support a globalist government that is fueled by debt. Get the truth from my blog. I have a 28 point program to rebuild the American industrial base and to create energy independence.

Roman Gil
http://roman-gil1.blogspot.com

STEVE_M

5:34 PM ET

Great topic

I've been long curious on the war protections offered to civilian government heads and institutions. I'm interested in more on this topic.

Here's my opinion as a non-lawyer. While these individuals are considered civilians, they are (in most cases) the top of the chain of command. To me, this makes people like the president, secdef, Congress, and other high ranking defense positions legitimate targets. And by extension, the environments they operate in are "command and control" structures and become valid targets in times of war. This includes the White House, Congress, CIA HQ, Pentagon, etc.

JOHNBOY4546

6:40 PM ET

A slippery slope, Steve

Because if you examine Israel's Operation Cast Lead against Gaza you'll see that leads you.

Because Israel used that same argument, but used it add infinitum i.e. they argued that
1) Hamas ruled Gaza, therefore
2) every government structure was a "Hamas structure", and so
3) destroying those structures weakened Hamas' hold on power, therefore
4) each and every government building can (and should) be blasted to smithereens.

Which is exactly what the IDF proceded to do....

2:28 AM ET

Good point

But yeah, spelling this out by law without governments exploiting loopholes is probably far fetched. Bombing government buildings vital to civilian life (post offices, job centers, DMVs, etc) should obviously be illegal in war. Though some of us might be rooting for the enemy to bomb the DMV... ;)

DAVIDP

1:46 PM ET

Groundhog Day?

It seems ever since I did the login to FP today, I've been having Deja Vu...I mean, didn't we try to kill Qadafi in the days of Bush senior?

Why is it such a hard task?

I mean, if we can get Osama so easily, someone so high profile should be fairly straight forward, shouldn't it?

As for being legal or not, I think the law has been obfuscated a lot in the last 2 decades.

MIKEHAAS

1:17 PM ET

June 13, 2011

Extrajudicial Execution

Qadafi has been accused of a crime by the International Court of Justice. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bans extrajudicial executions, of which the two oped writers are obviously or maliciously unaware.
What makes Qadafi a military target? Not Resolution 1973.
The laws of war were designed to restrict actions, not permit them.
And the Convention on Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife of 1928 bans interventions in civil wars, so the UN Security Council could only authorize military action to stop a threat to international peace. Qadafi's only threat across his borders was to promote a surge of refugees to neighboring countries, which did exist when NATO started operations in Libya but now has stopped..
Just because someone may want Qadafi to resign or leave the country does not mean that killing him is justified.
What the distinguished writers need to explain is why the current NATO operation in Libya is in accord with 1973, as many countries now believe otherwise.

KUNINO

5:39 PM ET

Remembering George Shulz

Shulz, secretary of state under Reagan, commented on Gaddafi's claim that insults from Washington were exactly the same as war with the United States. Shulz remarked -- in one of the best public statements by any US official in the past 50 years -- that if the US started war with Libya, colonel Gaddafi would soon see the difference. Soon thereafter, a stealth bombing of Tripoli killed one of Gaddafi's children.

Twentyfive years have passed and in that time the US has deployed multigenerational weapon improvements and developed transformationally improved intelligence. Ability to wage war with Libya doesn't seem to have improved much in the interim. Why?

XPLOSIVE

11:48 AM ET

Everybody seems to be missing the point!

What everyone needs to remember is that the US, NATO, et al. are not at war with Libya so rules of the war zone don't quite apply here. So for people wondering why our mighty militaries are unable to conquer Libya (even though we have advanced so much); this is not a full on war; if it was no doubt Libya would be but a pile of dust in a matter of days (the operation there has so far taken 10 weeks)...

The reason for such lengthy delays and stalls is that under certain conventions we are only there to protect civilians from getting hurt as results of a conflict that mostly classifies as Civil War (between the rebels and Ghadafi)...

That is the main reason why it may (even under the rules of war) be illegal to target any of the Libyan heads of state for assassination. Disarming rouge elements is the most acceptable way to protect civilians and arresting (not killing) Ghadafi and his elements to bring them in front of legal bodies for what they’ve done to unarmed civilians is the only acceptable way to deal with anything like this.

Osama’s case should have been dealt with in the exact manner, he could have easily been detained and taken to court and tried for any crime he’d committed. However someone really wanted him dead not tried before the court!!! I wonder why?!