Quoting:
The only question this brings to mind is, of course, if the legislation was repealed to allow an assassination of Saddam, where would it end?
End Quote

It depends.  Who do you want "wacked"?  8)

Just kidding.  That's a very good question.  I hope appropriate safeguards will be put into place so nobody can just "wack" freely.  (which sounds kinda dirty)

Quoting:
"If we go to war in Iraq and hostilities result, command and control and top generals, people who are in charge of fighting the war to kill the United States' troops, cannot assume that they will be safe," spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "If you go to war, command and control are legitimate targets under international law."
End Quote

I hope Bush realises that this includes him!

Quoting:

I hope Bush realises that this includes him!

End Quote

I'm sure he does.  One of the planes on 9/11 was headed for Camp David/White House area, remember?

Quoting:
Has anyone else heard about this?  What are your thoughts?

Fitzgerald: Bush talked about assassinating Saddam
February 25, 2003 (Arlington Heights, Ill.) — President Bush told Sen. Peter Fitzgerald he would likely order the assassination of Saddam Hussein "if we had a clear shot" at the Iraqi leader, Fitzgerald told the Daily Herald.
Fitzgerald made his comments Monday during an interview with the editorial board of the suburban Chicago newspaper. He was asked how the United States could capture and remove Saddam from power without killing thousands of Iraqi citizens.

"That's a really good question because the administration -- I have personally talked to the president about this -- and if we had intelligence on where he was now, and we had a clear shot to assassinate him, we would probably do that," Fitzgerald said. "President Bush would probably sign an executive order repealing the executive order put in place by President Ford that forbid the assassination of foreign leaders."

Asked to clarify his remarks, the Republican from suburban Inverness reiterated that Bush told him he would authorize changing U.S. policy to kill Saddam.

On Tuesday, however, Fitzgerald refused to discuss the matter further, repeatedly telling The Associated Press, "no comment."

The White House said Tuesday that Saddam and other Iraqi leaders would be legitimate targets for U.S. military forces in a war.

"If we go to war in Iraq and hostilities result, command and control and top generals, people who are in charge of fighting the war to kill the United States' troops, cannot assume that they will be safe," spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "If you go to war, command and control are legitimate targets under international law."

Asked whether that could mean Saddam, Fleischer said, "Of course."

Fleischer said Bush did not recall the conversation with Fitzgerald.

"I know that Senator Fitzgerald is not quite certain the date it took place, or where it took place, it could have been a year ago, he says. So I think there is some uncertainty in Senator Fitzgerald's mind," Fleischer said.

A Fitzgerald spokesman told the Daily Herald he thinks the conversation took place Jan. 7, when the senator flew back to Washington aboard Air Force One after Bush gave a speech in Chicago.

Fitzgerald said he would support a change in policy to assassinate Saddam.

"I think in this limited case it would make sense if you could avoid a lot of civilian casualties, harm to our own young men and women in the armed forces," he said.

He said he thought Bush had spoken publicly about the matter previously.

"I don't want to betray any confidences of the president," Fitzgerald said. "I assumed he had said that somewhere else. But maybe if he didn't say that anywhere else, I shouldn't have said that just now."



End Quote

Yea, Bush wants to kill Saddam, Saddam wants to kills Bush, that other dude wants to kill the other guy, and they want to go to war, yaddy yaddy ya, bla bla bla... These people really need to stop!  After all, we the citizens are the ones who pay for anything they do.

I'm not choosing sides or anything, but I seriously think Bush and Saddam need help, and fast!

Quoting:
Speaking of killing Saddam, this lady on a local radio station asked why Dan Rather didn't assassinate him while he was interviewing him. ;D
End Quote

Oh my word!  The radio people are in on it too!  God, where am I!

Quoting:
The only question this brings to mind is, of course, if the legislation was repealed to allow an assassination of Saddam, where would it end?
End Quote

Indeed.  The following is from the Christian Science Monitor:

In 1998, after a failed attempt to kill Osama bin Laden in a missile attack on a camp in Afghanistan, President Clinton signed an executive order authorizing use of "lethal force" against Al Qaeda.

Now, says the Times, the Bush administration has compiled a list of about two dozen terrorist leaders starting with Mr. bin Laden - whom the CIA is authorized to kill. And the president has signed a "finding" providing authority for the "covert action," as required by law. The administration's position is that, as "enemy combatants," these terrorists are not protected by the order banning assassinations.

When it comes to assassination, the situation has changed since Sept. 11. Unlike government leaders targeted by US presidents - such as Mr. Castro, Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega, Libya's Qaddafi, and Iraq's Saddam Hussein - today's terrorists have no capitals and no fixed addresses. This makes it more difficult to target them.

However, the technology of assassination has advanced. Satellite imaging and National Security Agency eavesdropping are of some help in tracking targeted individuals. And the unmanned Predator aircraft, carrying Hellfire missiles, provides an updated way of killing at a distance without risk to the killers.

That was how a top Al Qaeda leader was killed last month while driving through a bleak stretch of desert in Yemen. Five others in the car were also killed in the missile strike. The modern mode of assassination by remote control tends to hit collateral and possibly innocent targets. This is perhaps why neither the White House nor the CIA will discuss this presidential license to kill.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1220/p13s03-cods.html

Quoting:
Yea, Bush wants to kill Saddam, Saddam wants to kills Bush, that other dude wants to kill the other guy, and they want to go to war, yaddy yaddy ya, bla bla bla... T
End Quote

Has strains of Tom Lehrer:
http://wiw.org/~drz/tom.lehrer/the_year.html#brotherhood

There is a huge problem for any leader who thinks political assasination is an appropriate tool for international (or even domestic ;-)) politics: in effect, you're saying "I am a legitimate target, too"... so no leader in their right minds will support that proposition.  So Bush might, I guess.

Phil

Quoting:
I'm sure he does.  One of the planes on 9/11 was headed for Camp David/White House area, remember?
End Quote

Yep, and wasn't this condemned by the US (and pretty much everyone else) as horrendous terrorism.
I guess it will be different if the US does it to someone else?  :P

It's also worth considering the implications of democracy

Quoting:Democracy:
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly.... (Merriam-Webster)
End Quote

Control of the US military is (at least in theory) by the people of the USA (ie the civilians)
Therefore, according to Fleisher, US citizens are legitimate targets in a war.
Please note that, Iraq being a dictatorship, this doesn't apply to Iraqi citizens!

...Just a thought!