To Kill Or NotWe were stunned by this comment the other day from Attorney General Edward H. Levi:”1 think it important in terms of the morality of our country, our way of life and the things we really believe in, to say that it really is beyond the (Constitutional) power of the President to orderassassination.”We were stunned that the government's highest justice official should have had to make such a statement, as though he sensed a certain national tolerance of assassination as a legitimate and necessary tool of foreign policy.Mr. Levi’s comments were in response to allegations that Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and some of their advisers actively considered having the Central Intelligence Agency assassinate Premier Fidel Castro of Cuba and perhaps other foreign leaders.There is no evidence — yet — indicating that the CIA actually attempted directly to murder Castro or anyone else. But former CIA officials have admitted to the Rockefeller Commission and in public that assassinations were considered.There have been indications, as well, that actual plans were prepared. And one former CIA operative says his men in Cuba had Castro comfortably in their gun sights. They required only the order to fire — presumably with the President’s approval But the order never came.All that we really know for certain is that Castro remains very much alive. Maybe the CIA, or someone with CIA assistance, tried and failed to kill him. We will probably never know.Nevertheless, the mere fact that such acts have been diseqssed at the highest echelons of the government — and the very fact that “to kill or not to kill” is being debated across the country — is a serious reflection of how the fears engendered by the Cold War have warped our perception of how a great nation should behave.It is not hard to conceive a situation in which it becomes necessary for the President to order the assassination of a demented foreign leader who secretly plans to plunge the world into nuclear war.At such Strangelovean moments, a President must do what he must, but he must do so without the sanction of the Constitution, knowing that he will be answerable for the consequences.Clearly no such moments have occurred that justified even contingency planning of another president’s sudden demise. Mr. Levi’s firm Reminder that there are legal and moral restraints upon the use of presidential power should help reawaken in us a sense of national purpose and propriety.Dabbling in assassination is not only wrong, it is beneath us.