“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”

Executive Order 12036 (January 24 1978)

January 24 2024 — On January 24 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order 12036 that imposed restrictions on the U.S. Intelligence Community. Among other things, EO 12036 expanded the U.S. ban on assassination by closing loop-holes. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

RELATED POST: On This Day — Tehran Frees US Hostages After 444 Days (January 20 1981)

RELATED POST: On This Day — Former DCI Admiral Stansfield Turner Dies (January 18 2018)

RELATED POST: One Year Ago — Zbigniew Brzezinski: “An exceptional failure all round.”

RELATED POST: Parody –“Party In The CIA” by “Weird Al” Yankovic

“The assassination of Soleimani is first known incident in which a nation invoked self-defence as a justification for an attack against a state actor in the territory of a third country. The United States has failed to provide sufficient evidence of an ongoing or imminent attack against its interests in order to justify the strike.”

Agnès Callamard
United Nations special rapporteur

UPDATE (January 24 2024) — Today, I asked ChatGPT two questions. Was the assassination of Qasem Soleimani justified? Was it legal under International Humanitarian Law? Here is the answer.

1) U.S. Justification: The U.S. government argued that the airstrike was a defensive measure to prevent imminent attacks on American interests. The claim was that Soleimani was actively planning and directing actions that posed a threat to U.S. personnel and interests in the region.

2) International Humanitarian Law (IHL): IHL, also known as the laws of war, sets out rules that seek to protect civilians and non-combatants during armed conflicts. Targeted killings of specific individuals, even those considered military commanders, can be contentious under IHL.

— Imminence and Necessity: One key factor in assessing the legality of such actions is the imminence of the threat. If there was clear and imminent danger, it might be argued that the strike was a legitimate act of self-defense. However, the lack of transparency in presenting concrete evidence by the U.S. has raised questions about the imminence of the threat.

— Territorial Sovereignty: The fact that the airstrike occurred on the territory of Iraq without the consent of the Iraqi government also raises concerns about violations of territorial sovereignty, which is a fundamental principle of international law.

3) Debate and Criticism: The action faced significant criticism both domestically and internationally. Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur, as quoted earlier, expressed doubts about the legality and justification of the strike, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence.

In summary, the legality of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani is a matter of debate and interpretation of international law. Different legal experts, scholars, and organizations may have varying opinions on whether the U.S. action complied with the principles of self-defense and international law, particularly in terms of imminence and territorial sovereignty.

I find the answer fair and balanced. What do you think?

END of UPDATE

“The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface.”

CIA assassination manual
(1953)

The Executive Order 12036 expanded the U.S. ban on assassination by closing loop-holes.

“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”

This ban on assassination would be restated in Executive Order 12333.

Timeline

1976 — President Ford’s EO 11905 prohibits “any member of the U.S. government from engaging or conspiring to engage in any political assassination.”

1978 — President Carter’s EO 12036

1981 — President Reagan’s 1981 EO 12333: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.”  [paragraph 2.11]

Despite a number of subsequent amendments [Executive Orders 13284 (2003), 13355 (2004) and 13470 (2008)] to this executive order, the paragraph has remained unchanged through the various presidential administrations.

Was the Soleimani Killing an Assassination?

The term “assassination” is not defined in these orders.

The most helpful government document explaining how the U.S. approaches assassination in regard to a military operation is a 1989 memorandum coordinated with and concurred in by the Department of State’s legal adviser, the Central Intelligence Agency’s general counsel, the National Security Council’s legal adviser, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy, and the civilian and military legal advisers in the Department of Defense.

The Parks memorandum makes 3 important points:

— First, it defines an assassination as an act of murder for political purposes.

— Second, the memo (later confirmed by a CRS report) recognizes that the term “assassination” may have different connotations depending on whether the act takes place in wartime or peacetime. Political” murder is illegal in either situation. During armed conflict, there may be a greater allowance for violence.

— Third, an “overt use of military force against legitimate targets in time of war, or against similar targets in time of peace where such individuals or groups pose an immediate threat to the United States citizens or the national security of the United States, as determined by competent authority, does not constitute assassination” and therefore “would not be prohibited by the proscription in EO 12333 or by international law.”

Major General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, was intentionally killed by a US air strike on January 3 2020.

If General Soleimani was killed for political purposes, then his murder was a political assassination and therefore it is unlawful under both US and International Law.

As the air strike was done outside of an armed conflict, it can only be lawful if and only if the US acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks organized and/or controlled by General Soleimani.

So the question is: was there an imminent threat?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been rather ambiguous in his explanations, arguing that the threat was imminent but he did not know when these alleged attacks would occur.

(10 Jan 2020) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubles down on the reliability and clarity of the intelligence the U.S. had on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and imminent plans of an attack.

“We had specific…, information on an imminent threat and that was threat stream included attacks on U.S. embassies. Period, full stop,” said Pompeo.

“I don’t know exactly which minute. We don’t know exactly which day it would have been executed. But it was very clear, Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large scale attack against American interests. And those attacks were imminent.”

REFERENCES

Executive Order 12036 — Wikipedia

Executive Order 12333 — CIA Website

Was the Soleimani Killing an Assassination? — Lawfare Blog

=

On This Day — President Carter Signs Executive Order 12036 [Ban on Assassination] (January 24 1978)

[UPDATE : On the justification and legality of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani]