Were there ever secret agents "licensed to kill" in real-life?

Silhouette Man

Were there ever secret agents/spies/assasins given a government-sanctioned "licence to kill" in the real-world by America, UK, Soviet Russia or in the rest of Europe? A la James Bond, the globe-trotting trouble-shooter.

I have a feeling that there were, but I would really like to know more as well as members here possibly making recommendations of books/articles to read on this subject matter?

Thanking you for reading.

AlphaOmegaSin

Well, Flemming was an Agent during WW2. Most of his own Personal Experiences would become the Basis for Bond. There were Agents on both sides of the 'Cold War' behind Enemy Lines. But I doubt there were any Car Chases or Secret Lairs going up in Smoke.

MFisher

When you consider that even the basic police officer has authority to use deadly force to make an arrest... whereas the private citizen only has the right to use deadly force in self defense or in defense of another.. there is an implied "license" or rather more appropriately put, an "authority" to kill placed on the shoulders of even the police.... And this being an authority thatis distinct to that profession.. The police may take a life when the public could not. Take that in comparison with the duties and expectations of a government operative working to protect a greater cause with national security, secrets etc.. I would say that the authorization or "license" to kill would be implicit in the job.

minigeff

MFisher wrote:

When you consider that even the basic police officer has authority to use deadly force to make an arrest... whereas the private citizen only has the right to use deadly force in self defense or in defense of another.. there is an implied "license" or rather more appropriately put, an "authority" to kill placed on the shoulders of even the police.... And this being an authority thatis distinct to that profession.. The police may take a life when the public could not. Take that in comparison with the duties and expectations of a government operative working to protect a greater cause with national security, secrets etc.. I would say that the authorization or "license" to kill would be implicit in the job.

Not in my country there ain't bub.

Silhouette, I suggest you read 'defence of the realm', it might help you out.

MFisher

I have never researched the law regarding police overseas.. ( I am currently a patrol Sgt here in the states.. and taught law at our police academy for two years to the trainees).. So I am now curious as to deadly force policies for your police... But just to make sure I get this correctly.. lets say you have a suspect commit a homicide... police show up... he runs... they are now in pursuit of him... a killer... armed... the police would not be able to use deadly force to stop the threat from continuing ?

MFisher

In just a brief look through the net (admittedly nt the most trustworthy place for the truth ) I did find a law review article regarding deadly force in the UK... quote from the article :

Consequently, in the UK, police officers are given the discretion to determine if the suspect poses a threat to the police officer or the public. In the pursuit of these suspects, police officers are given the power to use deadly force through probably cause of harm. The courts decide whether the use of deadly force is justified or not and in some cases, police officers are charged because their use of deadly force is considered to be unjustifiable. Hence, there is a very thin line separating the justification of the use of deadly force from an act that is unjustified. The ethical and moral dilemma of police officers therefore rests not only on the regulations of their agency but on their analytical and ethical decision. Thus, the pursuit of the philosophical theory that can best justify the use of deadly force ensues.

minigeff

Being as the majority of our police officers aren't (thankfulky) armed, the use of deadly force isn't something the everyday beat bobby has to consider.

Whenever a firearms officer discharges his weapon, I believe the IPCC (independent police complaints commission) will be involved, certainly if the officer shoots anyone. If a fatality occurs then the officer will be suspended from active duty until the inquiry is completed. The same goes for if a fatality occurs during a vehicle pursuit.

While I think about it, PIT and TPAC manoeuvres are only to be carried out by specially trained officers.

Some police forces prefer tasers, with trained officers carrying them, but not all. Other forces only have firearms officers carrying tasers.

The regular beat bobby carries an extendable baton and CS gas.

MG

Polynikes

minigeff wrote:

Being as the majority of our police officers aren't (thankfulky) armed, the use of deadly force isn't something the everyday beat bobby has to consider.

Whenever a firearms officer discharges his weapon, I believe the IPCC (independent police complaints commission) will be involved, certainly if the officer shoots anyone. If a fatality occurs then the officer will be suspended from active duty until the inquiry is completed. The same goes for if a fatality occurs during a vehicle pursuit.

While I think about it, PIT and TPAC manoeuvres are only to be carried out by specially trained officers.

Some police forces prefer tasers, with trained officers carrying them, but not all. Other forces only have firearms officers carrying tasers.

The regular beat bobby carries an extendable baton and CS gas.

MG

I'm not thankful I'm not armed.Officers are killed often enough to warrant it and I could have done with being armed st least once. Dixon of Dock Green has gone forever. A firearm is just another tactical option that seldom has to be used..... But I'd like that option!

minigeff

Never considered having to take a life then?

If you don't think having to do so would bother you, then I'd think you're in the wrong job.

Dixon of dock green may be gone forever, but 'popping a cap in crims asses' isn't the way forward.

Sir Miles

Polynikes wrote:

I'm not thankful I'm not armed.Officers are killed often enough to warrant it and I could have done with being armed st least once. Dixon of Dock Green has gone forever. A firearm is just another tactical option that seldom has to be used..... But I'd like that option!

Couldn't disagree more...but this is getting off topic now...

MFisher

Yeah.... unless you have done the job you don't need to suggest how we do it... because you just don't know... but anyhoo..

minigeff

I'm not telling anyone how to do their job, I'm saying that fighting fire with fire ain't always the best way.

Sir Miles

MFisher wrote:

Yeah.... unless you have done the job you don't need to suggest how we do it... because you just don't know... but anyhoo..

As you say...unless you've done the job...and hiding behind a gun isn't the answer...is it ?....

MFisher

look... this conversation has totally become derailed with really bizarre responses... a question was raised regarding the authority to kill... to which I gave a reasonable response... which was answered with a condescending and clearly false response.. "not in my country, bub"... yet by his own admissions later, when he discusses police discharging their weapons, deadly force IS, in fact, used by the police... and seriously.. "bub ?" Simply condescending.. period.. And now we have the others who want to chime in with their obvious expertise and make cowardly jabs like "hiding behind a gun"....(which interestingly enough was thrown out by the one who wants to raise issue with the topic being derailed)
Well, I can tell you first hand.. if you have ever had to apprehend a violent felon.. maybe one who is out on parole.. and has openly claimed that he would not go back to prison again.. Being armed is not hiding.. it is being prepared... because when they do turn on you.. and they are armed, whether with a firearm, a cutting instrument or whatever he had available - that is not the time to think, oh gee.. maybe we should have brought something other than these batons.. or this OC spray... That's not "fighting fire with fire" either... it is simple preparedness... Would you hunt a bear with a sharp stick ?
At the end of the day the question was regarding deadly force.... which again.. was all that was asked... I don't recall anyone asking if we all agreed on whether or not deadly force SHOULD be used... or if we could all agree that the police SHOULD or should NOT be prepared to face the possibility of fatal encounters while on the job.... obviously we won't agree... So I will gladly keep reporting for duty each day.. prepared to face the possibility of fatal encounters... and I won't hide behind the tools of my profession.. but rather use them to accomplish the tasks that I have sworn to accomplish in order to protect the citizenry..

Sir Miles

You said you wanted to be armed whilst on duty...I disagreed that that was a good idea....and based on your aggressive tone I'm very happy you aren't armed...so much for Police training 8-)

don p

MFisher wrote:

I have never researched the law regarding police overseas.. ( I am currently a patrol Sgt here in the states.. and taught law at our police academy for two years to the trainess).. So I am now curious as to deadly force policies for your police... But just to make sure I get this correctly.. lets say you have a suspect commit a homicide... police show up... he runs... they are now in pursuit of him... a killer... armed... the police would not be able to use deadly force to stop the threat from continuing ?

in the UK, deadly force may only be used, if your ! or someone elses life is in iminant threat,, police cannot shoot a running suspect,

because,, that ! is what he is,, a suspect,,

don p

anyway...... back to the 1st question,,

mosad, did and still do have agents who,s task is to remove people permanently, that SIS, are pros, and feared ,,

MFisher

You said you wanted to be armed whilst on duty...I disagreed that that was a good idea

Reading comprehension is a good thing when trying to make a point... try again... the post regarding the desire to be armed was made by someone else... not me... but anyhoo... you clearly have an axe to grind regarding those scary firearms.. which is ironic that a person with an obvious interest in a character who is notorious for violence and deadly force would be such delicate flowers on the topic of firearms and deadly force... (this is a James Bond forum isn't it ?? or did I stumble into the forum for Desperate Housewives fans ?)

As for :

in the UK, deadly force may only be used, if your ! or someone elses life is in iminant threat,, police cannot shoot a running suspect,

because,, that ! is what he is,, a suspect,,

You are throwing around terms you don't fully understand how to apply... if I show up to a shooting and a witness gives a detailed description of the "suspect"... and we locate this guy a few blocks over... and a pursuit ensues... yes, he is a "suspect"... lets say he even opens fire now... still a "suspect"... and yes.. deadly force could be used... if he fires and turns to flee.. deadly force is still applicable as the risk of allowing the "suspect" to flee into the public, while still armed presents a greater danger than the act of using deadly force... in the endit is clear that I am trying to discuss the facts regarding deadly force with a few members who simply want to express their opinions on how they feel things should be done...

don p

MFisher wrote:

You said you wanted to be armed whilst on duty...I disagreed that that was a good idea

Reading comprehension is a good thing when trying to make a point... try again... the post regarding the desire to be armed was made by someone else... not me... but anyhoo... you clearly have an axe to grind regarding those scary firearms.. which is ironic that a person with an obvious interest in a character who is notorious for violence and deadly force would be such delicate flowers on the topic of firearms and deadly force... (this is a James Bond forum isn't it ?? or did I stumble into the forum for Desperate Housewives fans ?)

As for :

in the UK, deadly force may only be used, if your ! or someone elses life is in iminant threat,, police cannot shoot a running suspect,

because,, that ! is what he is,, a suspect,,

You are throwing around terms you don't fully understand how to apply... if I show up to a shooting and a witness gives a detailed description of the "suspect"... and we locate this guy a few blocks over... and a pursuit ensues... yes, he is a "suspect"... lets say he even opens fire now... still a "suspect"... and yes.. deadly force could be used... if he fires and turns to flee.. deadly force is still applicable as the risk of allowing the "suspect" to flee into the public, while still armed presents a greater danger than the act of using deadly force... in the endit is clear that I am trying to discuss the facts regarding deadly force with a few members who simply want to express their opinions on how they feel things should be done...

your US rules are not the same as the UK mate..

but lets not all get into a silly arguement,,

MFisher

your US rules are not the same as the UK mate..

but lets not all get into a silly arguement

ABSOLUTELY... but please actually read the law review article quoted above regarding deadly force rules in the UK .. it CLEARLY states :

" Consequently, in the UK, police officers are given the discretion to determine if the suspect poses a threat to the police officer or the public. In the pursuit of these suspects, police officers are given the power to use deadly force through probably cause of harm."

Am I missing something in the text where it states IN PURSUIT OF THESE SUSPECTS, POLICE OFFICERS ARE GIVEN THE POWER TO USE DEADLY FORCE ?!?!???!?!?!?!?

But anyhow.... I would really like to hear the opinion of someone over there that actually works in this profession.. and not just a handful of opinions based on how individuals FEEL about use of force... because that is where this thread has gone... I am referring to policy and law.. and you are referring to your opinions...

Oh well....in all honesty I am disappointed the topic has gone in this direction.. because the initial question is interesting... and the ONLY point I wished to make was simple... if even your basic police officer has the authority, "license", or however you wish to term it - to kill ..... Then it is a reasonable conclusion that "secret agents" as the original post refers to, would have such authority considering the gravity of their duties and the scope of what they are designed to protect... It would be an implicit possibility considering the dangers faced by those involved in espionage

minigeff

Yeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Howdy partners and Merry Christmas!!!! Yoweee!!!! (Firing peacemaker in the air sporadically)

Well gosh darn and shucks, seems I gone dun it again, acting all con dee sending to all them trigger happy Yankee fellas over that there other side of the pond! Mighty sorry bout that, BUB.

Now in response to the whole 'should the rozzers have shooters' idea;

We're all aware that the good old USA (canned cheering sound effect) has quite a different stance to gun ownership than us Brits do. The yanks see it as a right to own guns, and that exactly where the trouble lies. Us Brits in comparison don't go in for all this gun stuff as much, I dunno why, but I suspect because you have to ask, very nicely before you get one. So in America you can argue it's your right and the state can't do much about it, but in the UK it's up to the state to decide for you if you're suitable to have a gun. Does this make the UK a nanny state, over bearing big brother with a handle on everything, or does it make the USA (canned cheering) somewhat too laid back with the approach to handing out guns?

Ok, so I can understand what you're saying Mr Fisher, it's dark, a shootings taken place, you're on your own etc etc. You cannot compare this kind if situation because in the UK, that kind of scenario would have very different results. You'd have firearms officers, dog teams, bloody eye in the sky would turn up an all.

But let's take the idea of the police carrying guns. Regardless of the danger of the situation, if an officer is carrying and he or she is in slight danger, what do you think us gonna come out first? The CS gas? The baton? The taser? The gun? I'd hazard a bet that when the crap went down, 90% of the time, regardless of what they'd been trained to do, the big guns would come out first. And that's exactly why I don't want UK police carrying guns. When a gun comes out, the likeliness of someone getting shot sky rockets. And who's to say it won't be the officer getting shot with their own gun? Bet that's never happened in the good old US of A (canned cheering) before.

So back to my original point about your 2nd amendment, the right to own a gun. When this comes up, everyone wants one. Ask any American WHY they have a gun, the majority of the time it's 'because it's my right to'. So you get a gun, then your mate wants one, your neighbour wants one, your mum gets one 'just in case' and it spreads like wildfire. Then whenever a crime takes place, the chances of a gun being involved are massively increase, as its usually the criminal fraternity that want to carry. And if you don't believe in the 'he's got one so I want one' mentality, just take a look at your space race or the Cold War.

Another thing that springs to mind is the American NRA's answer to shootings at school. Not tighten regulation on firearms ownership, but just have an armed security guard at every school. So in order to stay safe and protect kids, you wanna put guns in their school.... what, the, f@ck? "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". in response to that shining nugget of wisdom I say "a dead good guy can do shitt, but his gun in the hands of his murderer can". What will it take for those guys to see that more guns is not the answer?

So there ya go, little old me who knows nothing about being a rozzer, but still respects them, but also has an opinion on why it's bad for guns to be so easily obtained and carried by law enforcement.

Oh and I've been shooting since 1997, and have once been a gun club secretary for 4 years. I support shooting sports and the right to partake in them at every level, but also believe in the safe ownership and regulation of firearms.

MG -{

Polynikes

minigeff wrote:

Never considered having to take a life then?

If you don't think having to do so would bother you, then I'd think you're in the wrong job.

Dixon of dock green may be gone forever, but 'popping a cap in crims asses' isn't the way forward.

Thanks for the careers advice ........as an ex soldier I've had to consider it very carefully. I don't have a gung ho attitude to weapons I just like to be in control of my own fate. As someone who has found myself with nothing more than a pocket full of loose change when confronted with a gunman I think I'm entitled to have a view on the subject..... As do you of course.

Anyway staying on topic I have no idea if M16 operatives have a licence to kill but if our national security is in their hands I'd like to think so!

minigeff

Polynikes wrote:

minigeff wrote:

Never considered having to take a life then?

If you don't think having to do so would bother you, then I'd think you're in the wrong job.

Dixon of dock green may be gone forever, but 'popping a cap in crims asses' isn't the way forward.

Thanks for the careers advice ........as an ex soldier I've had to consider it very carefully.

Cool story bro, merry Xmas.

minigeff

I'm just reading one of my Xmas gifts, a rather battered but complete edition of 'The Big Breach' by Richard Tomlinson.

Page 70, paragraph 3, 2nd sentence is quite interesting with regards this thread's topic.

MG -{

Silhouette Man

Yes, I think this thread has been derailed from its original purpose quite enough - not my intention as its author, but this seems to be an all too common trend on AJB these days... 8-)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2013. -{

Silhouette Man

I'm with MFisher on this one, actually. As I'm from Northern Ireland, a part of the UK where the police force are still armed day and daily due to the threats from dissidents and other terrorst and paramilitary organisations. I support the arming of police and think it needs to be extended further beyond Northern Ireland (9/11, 7/7) has increaded the arming of riot police with sub-machine guns etc. and, as such, police shootins are more common. Jist see the de Menzenes shooting on why police powers can often be controversial, but in Northern Ireland firearms are discharged regularly, so to me it is more run-of-the-mill and less of a big deal. But those across the water in GB have little idea of the realities of a [police force under threat. Try going up against the IRA with a water pistol and just see how youy fare...different world from GB.

As a lawyer, I'd love to know the article you are referring to, MFisher? -{

Also, let's now move away from police powers and return to the question asked: Do/did secrets agents have a "licence to kill" in the true sense.

Silhouette Man

I too am a gun owner who supports responsible gun ownership here in the UK, the law having changed in 2004 so that firearms need a licence renewed every 5 years with references etc. -{

America needs gun reform and if anyone can do anything about it, it'll be President Obama.

Now, back to the topic in hand, please... -{

minigeff

Well to get things back on track, and in answer to the thread's title;

No.

minigeff

Silhouette Man wrote:

I too am a gun owner who supports responsible gun ownership here in the UK, the law having changed in 2004 so that firearms need a licence renewed every 5 years with references etc. -{

America needs gun reform and if anyone can do anything about it, it'll be President Obama.

Now, back to the topic in hand, please... -{

Just bear in mind that the situation in NI, and the gun laws in NI are quite different to the UK.

Thankfully, shootings are a lot less common in the UK than NI and the states, which is why I believe the need for UK police officers to carry guns is dramatically less.

Silhouette Man

minigeff wrote:

Well to get things back on track, and in answer to the thread's title;

No.

Direct and to the point - that's the way to do it!

minigeff

Silhouette Man wrote:

minigeff wrote:

Well to get things back on track, and in answer to the thread's title;

No.

Direct and to the point - that's the way to do it!

You'd want it any other way baby? )

From all the stuff I've read, I've never seen it in print declaring that MI6 overseas agents have ever been granted a 'licence to kill'.

Certainly in times of war, the SOE aided ally resistance agents in acts of sabotage etc against German forces.

As for the life on a real MI6 agent, from what Tomlinson's book has told me so far is the majority of work is desk based, with overseas stations manned by MI6 personnel masquerading as diplomats and embassy staff. The 'heavy work' is undertaken by specialist groups with the armed forces, SAS etc.

Although operatives are trained in sidearms, the majority of skills are to do with intel, sourcing it, passing it on, handling other operatives such as moles, double agents and defectors.

Sadly, no word of the company car from Newport pagnell or high stakes poker games.

There is mention of 'Q like characters'....