Talk:Licence to kill (concept)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Licence to kill vs. letter or marque[edit]

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)

Note For the archived deletion debate for this article see Talk:Licence to kill/delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Factual dispute[edit]

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)

"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)[reply]

Anyway, I've rewritten this piece so that it doesn't explicitly make the above sweeping assertion, yet maintains the original author's essential intention and meaning. jamesgibbon 01:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the factual dispute tag. It may be only a fictional literary concept, but I don't see that there is any dispute over the nature of the term or its origins. If we assume that this term could possibly exist in reality, I would also submit that a "license to kill" could very well be considered different that a "letter of marque" as suggested above. Historically, a letter of marque implies that the privateer (holder of the letter) would not only be authorized, but expected, to conduct operations authorized by the letter. That is to say, the privateer would be expected to look for trouble, rather than wait for it to find him. In contrast, a secret agent type would not go around shooting bad guys just because he was allowed to do so. Also, the privateer would be authorized to conduct acts of piracy, and probably to keep the proceeds of such acts. The "license to kill" concept almost certainly would not extend to plunder. Simishag 03:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contested move request[edit]

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)[reply]

Licence to kill (concept) → Licence to kill —(Discuss)— unnecessary appendage as it can be distinguished from the film by capitalisation —Reginmund 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contested. Articles should ideally be differentiated by more than a single letter case per WP:NC(P) ("Adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused. Use Streets of London (song) and Streets Of London (computer game) instead of Streets Of London and Streets of London."). — AjaxSmack 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MI6[edit]

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

Licence vs License[edit]

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

   The difference isn't a language one.  License is a verb, whereas licence is a noun.  The government would "license you to kill", whereas, you would hold a "licence to kill".84.92.93.230 (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Alan[reply]

In the US, "license" is both a noun and a verb. "Licence" is not used. My driver's license clearly says "license" and not "licence". All that being said, the article is almost entirely from a british perspective, rather than a global one, so the use of the british spelling is probably appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.54 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawfulness[edit]

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)[reply]