Talk:Licence to kill (concept)

message: I propose to move this page to simply "Licence to kill", while the Bond film to "Licence to Kill (film)". IMHO the more enduring concept ought to have the simpler name while the more ephemeral film should take the specifier label, especially since its name derives from that of the concept. Denihilonihil (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: Is this the actual name for this?  It seems to me to be merely a species of a Letter of marque and reprisal.  Anyone have info on this?--Samuel J. Howard 15:15, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't think that those were granted to civilian law enforcement agencies and police forces. I doubt that the US President or Israeli government would consider their authorised assasinations to be a letter of marque or reprisal, in spite of the basis for that view. The letter of marque concept seems to be largely historical these days, even though the activities continue. Given the largely historical focus of a letter of marque, I suppose there may be merit in using this article for more current events. Jamesday 07:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Licence to kill vs. letter or marque

message: I don't see any specific active factual dispute, so I'm going to remove the {dispute} tags. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
It's right there at the top of the page.  There's no evidence this is anything other than a literary reference employed in some instances by headline writers.--Samuel J. Howard 23:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
::Then please fix the article or nominate it for deletion. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
How can anyone assert that "there's no such thing"?! We have no way of knowing. Fleming's classic "licence to kill" is almost certainly a literary invention, but there may possibly be a counterpart within the intelligence / counter-insurgency community of some country somewhere. jamesgibbon 01:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hav[ing] no way of knowing", it's not responsible to assert there factually IS such a thing. See Extraterrestrial life for an example of the proper way to encyclopedically treat such a thing. 198.49.180.40 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual dispute

message: The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.  —Stemonitis 06:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move request

message: Ex-MI6 chief admits agents do have a licence to kill but denies executing Diana —Ashley Y 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MI6 

message: Should "License", the American English equivalent to the British english "Licence", be used? Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licence vs License 

message: The article makes clear that any authorisation should come directly from the Secretary of State. But if the use of lethal force by a British agent abroad is declared lawful at home, how does that interact with the local rule of law, on the soil where the act is committed? There are international laws regulating drivers licenses obtained elsewhere, but I am not aware of cross-country regulations mutually acknowledging "licences to kill" ... the concepts that come to mind as possibly serving such roles in real life, are legitimate self defence and proportionality of any response to a prior hostile act.
As the person who actually did this work points out, the very job description of a covert agent is breaking the law elsewhere, and he or she simply is in serious trouble if ever caught. Presumably the "licence" only covers any further legal entanglements back home, if the agent is lucky enough to be returned to where he or she came from.
When war has been declared, any hostilities resulting in death(s) are presumably covered by the Geneva convention. Would that apply here? Would such an action, lawful though it may be back home, nevertheless constitute a war crime, or else perhaps a de facto declaration of war?
This page could really use an expert on international law weighing in on this, instead of Clancy fanboy nonsense.
2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:8F0:787B:6D80:6290 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawfulness