Assassination during wartime, when a declared enemy is being targeted by snipers or by other means, has never been the question. The question evolved with the birth of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1948 and its unleashing in 1952. After his election in 1952 and through his two terms during the 1950’s, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a series of Executive Orders that empowered the fledgling CIA to use virtually any means possible to stop the spread of International Communism abroad.

That this evolved into abuses, where democratic elections in various countries were thwarted and U.S. commercial interests as well as political considerations were paramount, has been thoroughly documented. Similarly, it became convenient and sometimes easy for petty military dictators, many of who were fascist in everything but their rhetoric, to gain vast U.S. support by declaring themselves anti-Communists.

We as a nation are still paying the price in countless ways for the policies of Pres. Eisenhower and his two favored administration officials, the brothers Allen and John Foster Dulles. Yet during those years we were lulled by the declaration that the CIA’s actions, however antithetical to our revered principles, were by law only possible overseas in the Cold War against Communism.

But as anyone steeped in history could have – and sometimes did – predict, it is impossible to simultaneously walk on two moral pathways, especially when one is so much lower than the other. During the 1960’s and into the 1970’s it became increasingly clear that some CIA activities were out of the control of any government watchdogs, either in the Congress or the Executive or the Judicial branches, and that so-called rogue agents had been involved in Domestic surveillance and other activities.

It was the unraveling of the ugly politics of Pres. Richard Nixon and his administration that most fully illuminated the growing problem. Most of the Watergate Burglars, for example, had direct ties to the CIA. And now, for anyone who wants to get the flavor of what can happen when totally unscrupulous people inhabit the White House, there are the Nixon Tapes, which have been partially transcribed into a book. It is, sadly, like listening to John Gotti and his lieutenants discussing problems in the backroom of a fancy Brooklyn restaurant, yet instead the setting is the oval office with John Erlichman, Bob Haldeman and others listening to their boss, Richard Nixon.

But now we have a renewed effort aimed at doing more than revitalizing the CIA; again we hear talk of unleashing the agency.

And it is of course all under the guise of security. The Bush Administration has greatly expanded the CIA role in the recent Afghanistan conflict, and that seems perfectly justified. Yet the burnishing of the agency’s image has led to various intimations that there is a need to bring the CIA back to its former status. Of course, if this effort gains enough political capital, it might legitimize a Presidential lifting of the Assassination Ban, probably under the blanket guise of a need for more security.

If only we had allowed the CIA to organize the assassination of Saddam Hussein, as was intimated in a recent Primetime with Diane Sawyer, somehow some of the recent tragedies might have been prevented. The intimations occurred during Ms. Sawyer’s interview with Bob Baer, an ex-CIA officer who has written a book entitled See No Evil.

It is worth recalling, in this context, that prior to becoming a prominent TV news personality Ms. Sawyer was so loyal an aide to Pres. Nixon that she went with him to California when he resigned the Presidency. In her interview with Mr. Baer she offered questions that consistently opened the door to responses relating to the need for unlimited CIA activity.

In the course of her interview, Ms. Sawyer elicited a rationale for Mr. Baer’s apparent unwillingness to accept orders from Washington rejecting his action plans, and his continuing resentment of the decision of his superiors. The overall implication was that if more action had been taken, a greater evil might have been prevented.

But this is the slipperiest of slopes, if you will, for a democratic nation to pursue. And even Mr. Baer seems to clearly understand that fact.

In an ABC News Internet interview where ‘chat room’ questions were allowed, Mr. Baer was asked if he thought the CIA should be allowed to return to the sordid business of assassinations. He replied as follows: "I think that if the United States decides to conduct selective assassinations, it should be in the context of a war and it should be the responsibility of the military rather than the CIA. I believe the CIA should best serve the U.S. by being an unbiased reporter of the truth and if it were a fighting organization, that would affect its ability to analyze and report intelligence."

Mr. Baer’s viewpoint is clear, and should be respected. He seems to be a man who served this country well, and who is not at odds with his agency, but rather wishes to see it perform its intelligence gathering functions in the most complete manner; that is, using human skill that is accentuated by technical and electronic capabilities, rather than allowing mechanistic approaches to push aside the human insight gained from being ‘on the ground,’ so to speak.

And it is equally clear that the voices calling for a return to the ‘good old days’ of CIA freedom from restraint should be considered suspect. Our own history tells us so!

We must not remove the ban on assassinations, for any reason. To paraphrase the old adage, if we emulate our enemies in order to thwart our enemies, we have lost ourselves and become our enemies. There is a moral high ground, and this nation’s founders stood upon it. We should do the same, and stand proudly on that ground for all the people of all the nation’s of the world to see. Everyone should know that there are things Americans will not do, and that our adherence to such principles of conduct and governance do not make us weak, but instead make us stronger.