It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But to answer your question. I have no doubt there were/are agents like that. I also have no doubt no government would ever admit to having them.
However If an operator were to be caught in hostile country attempting to terminate a target then he would be treated as an enemy combatant & as a NOC (None Official Cover) operator would be denied by his home nation. They'd be either killed & buried in an unmarked grave which no one would ever know about or used as a media puppet for world wide publicity.
If it's the later then there is always the chance they would be claimed once the proverbial had hit the fan, it would be a major incident that would create a political storm, but once it's out in the open there's no point in denial.
If you look at it Bond operates in this reality, he is a sanctioned assassin, but there's no doubt that if he were caught, the UK Government would disown him, so "Licenced to Kill" no not really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9560403/Historian-reveals-the-Second-World-War-hero-who-inspired-the-creation-of-James-Bond.html
In fact there's quite a few that inspired Fleming, such as Sidney Reilly; Peter Smithers; Dušan Popov; Patrick Dalzel-Job - to name but a few.
If the assassin was a KGB or Bulgarian agent and had been caught, no doubt his government would have abandoned him and denied knowing anything about it. Same thing happened in DAD when Bond was caught by the North Koreans after trying to kill young Colonel Moon. State sponsored assassination. If you don't get caught, you're a hero to someone. You do, tough luck.
I agree with SirHenry. Personally i see the Licence to Kill as being related to his work, perhaps the difference being that he doesnt need to be assigned a specific target but can use his own judgement.
Somehow, im not sure his License would be accepted if he started shooting people for personal reasons e.g. Jumping the queue in a shop
An assassination is essentially a deliberately planned murder of an individual, usually politically motivated (but not always). Whilst Bond may be ordered to assassinate someone, this is only a part of his licence to kill. As I understand it, this "licence" essentially means that Bond is sanctioned, at his discretion, to kill anyone whom he deems is necessary to murder in order to complete his overall mission.
I don't believe that Bond's licence protects him from repercussions should he be captured. Indeed, there are many references to cyanide pills and that Bond (or other similar agents) would be required to commit suicide should they become captured or compromised. I'm not suggesting they would be entirely disavowed, but this licence would not necessarily prevent them from being tried and executed for assassination or espionage if caught.
Soldiers do not have a "licence to kill". They must follow the rules of engagement.
However, a friend of mine formerly of MI5 informs me that operations involving orders to kill do occur in Britain.
I agree with this take completely.
The one time the films have mucked up the concept of the licence to kill is when Bond tells Scaramanga that "I only kill on the specific orders of my government". The whole point of the OO Section is that its agents are permitted to kill without specific orders. e.g. Bond has clearly been ordered to kill Fischer and Dryden in CR. This is because he hasn't received his Licence to Kill yet.
I've always questioned the intelligence of people claiming Bond's licence to kill is a literal 'licence' that he carries around in his freaking wallet.... and I've heard people say that in all seriousness.... :-?
Governments do it all the time. They're called wars...
Governments use those too. They're called intelligence agencies...
Why does everyone assume that a licence to kill is synonymous with a killing spree? It is quite obvious that you would have to be a level headed agent to get such a privilege, and it is a privilege only to be used when most necessary, kind of like a last resort. Therefore you don't have to worry about any agents going about killing anyone in their sights and causing a diplomatic nightmare. Just because you have a licence to kill doesn't mean you are allowed to pop anyone you please; there are rules that dictate how it is to be used in the business of the cloak and dagger.
So say if I was to end up like Alex Rider or young Bond and I got given a LTK I wont be able to go into my headteacher office and put a bullet between his eyes?
Wow...that's a bit psychotic don't you think?
Yes I do know that my life isnt about Bond its about other stuff my mate thinks lifes about ultimate team and I am growing up actually and to be honest I dont think it matters because they can get the southern europeans in to help them or the rich africans like South Africa and by the way I have a pretty good life so you grow up and stop bullying 13 year olds.
What does that mean?
It means we cut a few posts from this thread and saved it in a dark corner.
Exactly. I think Deaver mentions that in Carte Blanche, and no doubt Fleming did in one of the novels.
I don't remember Fleming mentioning it, but it makes sense that they cannot. A scene like the one in DN, when Bond opens the door of his apartment holding his PPK, would be impossible in real life. Well, not impossible, but he would be doing something illegal.