36 replies to this topic

[MkB]

Until I read the Fleming novels and until the Casino Royale movie, I thought the 00 status meant an agent was authorized to kill, if he deemed it necessary to achieve his mission, and even if not in immediate self-defence (there are some examples in TWINE, with the killing of Davidov for instance, and the failed attempt at killing Renard in the mine). And this sounded logical to me: the best agents get the 00 status, because they are thought to use it wisely.

But it seems that the Fleming Bond was more of an assassin: the idea of the 00 section being an elite staff of cold-blooded assassins seems weird to me... Not that I'm a specıalıst of the question , but as far as I understand, killing people is a rather "basic" business for a professional. In the Thunderball novel, I even think I remember that Bond himself acknowledges it would be quite easy to have him killed by a pro. I thought that cold blood killing, not as an occasional requirement but as a "daily job", required a particular state of mind more than particular "elite" skills.

I'm a bit disappointed with this idea of the 00s as kind of thugs... I preferred the "elite spy, who is licenced to kill if necessary" far more than the "elite killer, who is licenced to spy if necessary".

What do you think?

Edited by MkB, 06 October 2007 - 01:49 PM.

[EyesOnly]

I always felt that the 00's were the agents assigned to the real tough jobs...extra dangerous if you will. Only the 00's are capable of getting the job done in situations such as that. My two cents of course!

[MkB]

Yes indeed, EyesOnly. It is exactly my point of view. But it seems to me odd to insist of the "assassin" side.

[Loomis]

Interesting that, as THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM makes clear, only one cold-blooded killing is needed for someone to become a fully paid-up Treadstone assassin, but, in the world of Bond, the British secret service requires its elite Double-Os to have chalked up two. Guess MI6 must have more exacting standards than the CIA.

[JimmyBond]

I'm a bit disappointed with this idea of the 00s as kind of thugs... I preferred the "elite spy, who is licenced to kill if necessary" far more than the "elite killer, who is licenced to spy if necessary".

It seems they go back and forth on what they want Bond to me. In some of the films he's referred to as a spy, and in other's he's referred to as an assassain. For what it's worth, I think the Brosnan films, and now the Craig films, are playing up the assassasin angle more than the spy angle.

[Turn]

I don't think being a 00 means you have to be a thug, merely that you aren't suddenly going to develop a conciense and hesitate to kill somebody to do his job. That's one of the appealing things about this in TLD when Bond does this and saves Kara's life.

One of the other interesting instances of Bond being referred to in this way is in OP when Octopussy herself refers to him as a "paid assassin" as Moore's Bond seems to fit the description least.

[LadySylvia]

I don't think being a 00 means you have to be a thug, merely that you aren't suddenly going to develop a conciense and hesitate to kill somebody to do his job. That's one of the appealing things about this in TLD when Bond does this and saves Kara's life.

One of the other interesting instances of Bond being referred to in this way is in OP when Octopussy herself refers to him as a "paid assassin" as Moore's Bond seems to fit the description least.

And Scaramanga had labeled both Bond and himself as assasins. Bond seemed a little ticked off by this comparison.

[AgentPB]

One of the other interesting instances of Bond being referred to in this way is in OP when Octopussy herself refers to him as a "paid assassin" as Moore's Bond seems to fit the description least.

I agree with your thought on Moore but i also wanted to point out how the word assassin is thrown at him almost as an insult. Whenever someone is insulting his intelligence they seem to call him an assassin. Bond always seems to take that as a slap in the face to. I think he kills when necessary for queen and country.

[Major Tallon]

This thread deals with an extremely interesting question: What exactly does it mean to have a Double-0 Number? I did a quick scan through the Fleming novels, and I found some slightly different answers. Here's what I came up with, though I'm undoubtedly missing some.

Casino Royale (Chapter 19): "For those two jobs I was awarded a Double 0 number in the Service. *** A Double 0 number in our Service means you've had to kill a chap in cold blood in the course of some job."

Moonraker (Chapter 1): "The 00 Section of the Secret Service was not concerned with the current operations of other sections and stations, only with background information which might be useful or instructive to the only three men in the Service whose duties included assassination -- who might be ordered to kill."

From Russia, With Love (Chapter 6): "The double 0 numerals signify an agent who has killed and who is privileged to kill on active service."

Goldfinger (Chapter 1): "As a secret agent who held the rare double-0 prefix -- the licence to kill in the Secret Service -- it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon."

In For Your Eyes Only, M maneuvers Bond into volunteering to kill Gonzales, more or less as a personal favor. In The Living Daylights, M gives the order to "kill this sniper. And you've got to kill him before he gets [escaping agent] 272."

Summarizing, the Double 0 started in Casino Royale as a recognition of what an agent had done. By Moonraker, it encompassed being ordered to perform assassinations, though only in the two short stories was such an assignment ever given (and one of those was outside the scope of Bond's employment). In FRWL and Goldfinger, it involved a history of having killed plus an element of discretion, called in Goldfinger a "licence to kill." Still, Bond doesn't commit casual murder or (well, Goldfinger and Blofeld apart) kill with relish. As I've noted elsewhere, Bond, though hardly a man of peace, isn't a thug. That's what makes him a character we can relate to.

[EyesOnly]

Is there really a difference between being a thug and a spy? Perhaps it takes a certain type of person to be a spy......maybe a thug?

Edited by EyesOnly, 08 October 2007 - 03:16 AM.

[MkB]

Is there really a difference between being a thug and a spy? Perhaps it takes a certain type of person to be a spy......maybe a thug?

Maybe you're true, I'm not experienced enough in real life spies to make up my mind... But I have the prejudice that a SIS field officer is more of a psychologist than of a thug; he/she'll have to manipulate people to get intel, more than bullying them; he/she'll have to master various technologies, technics, routines, and to have a wide comprehension of the social and political background.
If you want a comparison with outlaws, in my opinion, a spy is certainly closer to a high rank crook than to a thug.

BUT on the contrary, an assassin job seems to be far more "simple" than a HUMINT assignment. Any thug can kill (especially by shooting someone dead, if it doesn' involve disguising the person's death), but few people have the compulsory skills to work in human intelligence. This is why I don't like the idea of the 00 section as the "assassins section": killing can be part of the job for an elite spy, but it can't be his one and only job, it would be a waste of his skills (beyond moral considerations).

[col_007]

Interesting that, as THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM makes clear, only one cold-blooded killing is needed for someone to become a fully paid-up Treadstone assassin, but, in the world of Bond, the British secret service requires its elite Double-Os to have chalked up two. Guess MI6 must have more exacting standards than the CIA.

no it means us british are more careful with our agents

Edited by col_007, 08 October 2007 - 06:40 PM.

[MHazard]

As far as the literary Bond goes, I'd suggest taking a look at Chapter 1 of Goldfinger where Bond reflects on killing, which he dislikes but tries to do professionally, when necessary and the last chapter of Casino Royale where he decides to go after the hand that holds the whip over the spies rather than being a spy himself. Bond does not view his job as killer or assasin and neither does M. There are jobs when people need to be killed (Trigger in TLD, Von Hammersmith in FYEO, Dr. Shatterhand in YOLT-and note Bond's qualms about killing Shatterhand to accomplish his mission-before he's met Shatterhand.) Most of Bond's assignments call for a tough man who can protect himself and others. This occasionally requires him to kill, but its in the context of something else-retrieving a Spektor, locating a hijacked atom bomb, escaping from Piz Gloria, etc. Bond is not a classic intelligence agent who runs a network or is a mole himself. Bond is a secret agent, who solves problems for British intelligence. His assignment is rarely just to kill someone and he usually avoid it if there is another way to accomplish his mission. He rarely plays hitman in the movies, but the movies do make it look like he has too much fun killing people and Fleming took great pains to make it clear he takes no pleasure in dealing death, its just what he has to do from time to time. Let me add that as cool as I think the PTS in CR is, I don't really see Fleming's Bond being sent to kill a double agent in a friendly country where arrest and extradition would seem to be possible.

[marktmurphy]

Until I read the Fleming novels and until the Casino Royale movie, I thought the 00 status meant an agent was authorized to kill, if he deemed it necessary to achieve his mission, and even if not in immediate self-defence (there are some examples in TWINE, with the killing of Davidov for instance, and the failed attempt at killing Renard in the mine). And this sounded logical to me: the best agents get the 00 status, because they are thought to use it wisely.

I do much prefer this to the Fleming ideal of double Os; and it's how I always thought of it myself. Bond is merely ordered to kill the two people in CR (book and film), which seems to automatically earn him a double O. I much prefer the idea that a double O is someone who is trusted i.e. licenced, to kill anyone he deems fit without having to report to a superior to receive orders. That's a much more interesting idea and one which Bond fits more.
Certainly I've heard Daniel Craig talk of it this way, so it's how I think the current team see it.

[OmarB]

In the book "The Philosophy Of James Bond" there's a whole section on his status and how he feels about killing.

The long and short of it is he does not like to kill but for the greater good. The greater good being what his superiors tell him as evidenced in his thoughts recovering in the hospital in the second half of Casino Royal. He doesn't decide who's good or bad, he's told what to do and he does it dispassionately.

[MkB]

This thread deals with an extremely interesting question: What exactly does it mean to have a Double-0 Number? I did a quick scan through the Fleming novels, and I found some slightly different answers. Here's what I came up with, though I'm undoubtedly missing some.

Very interesting report, Major Tallon! It seems Fleming himself was as unsettled as we can be

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Dryden's killing may be justifyed, I think.

That secrets he sold could have compromised many agents and operations and cost many lives.

[Harry Fawkes]

On this topic may I submit this published report on 007 by O.F. Snelling. It was published in 1964. '...James Bond is a trained professional killer: it's no use beating about the bush with euphemisms. He kills as a soldier will kill; 'in the field', destroying his enemies in the name of his Queen and his country. He will fight hand to hand if he finds it expedient to do so, or he will kill with a sniper's bullet if it is not. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect, or who will snuff out a life 'just for kicks'. Violent death, of which he has seen and meted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.'

It was part of his profession to kill people. He never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the secret service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

SIS have men and women who gather the 'Intelligence' on a 'subject'. Once 'subject' is marked for death the 'Intelligence' division hands the case down to the Double O Section. The 'subject' is then conveniently removed from the face of this earth by one of the Double 0 agents - a man or woman like James Bond.


A very interesting topic I must say.

Harry Fawkes MRQ

Edited by Harry Fawkes, 06 January 2008 - 11:11 PM.

[Chester Copperpot]

I'm talking about real life here, but isn't any covert action operative in any country "licensed to kill"? As I get it, espionage/conuter-espionage is a game fought by countries in a clandestine fashion. As such, they are soldiers in a war that never ends? In fact, for those people involved, there are no peace time, they work in a field where there is a constant war going on. At least it was during the cold war. And if so, they wouldn't see themselved as "paid assassins" or "thugs" or "cold blooded murderers", but soldiers, fighting a war.

Casualties in a war is an occupational hazzard, they are expected to "do their duty" and fight for "king and country". If they are caught, they are expected to be killed, or in best case, exchanged for another captured agent. The point is, this has nothing to do with the fictional double-O status, every agent working clandestine in a covert action is not "licensed" to kill as such, but expected to make whatever necessary means to reach the goal, even if it means killing people.

[00Twelve]

Seems to me that cold-blooded killing would be the hardest thing to do, being more calculated and deliberate than murder committed in the heat of a fight. Seems that the government would need their most elite assassins to be able to be trusted to do so without reservation.

Major Tallon quoted the novels brilliantly.

The internal conflict within Bond is, of course, that it's impossible to be entirely unaffected, and that's part of what makes his celluloid incarnation interesting again.

[DR76]

Until I read the Fleming novels and until the Casino Royale movie, I thought the 00 status meant an agent was authorized to kill, if he deemed it necessary to achieve his mission, and even if not in immediate self-defence (there are some examples in TWINE, with the killing of Davidov for instance, and the failed attempt at killing Renard in the mine). And this sounded logical to me: the best agents get the 00 status, because they are thought to use it wisely.

But it seems that the Fleming Bond was more of an assassin: the idea of the 00 section being an elite staff of cold-blooded assassins seems weird to me... Not that I'm a specıalıst of the question , but as far as I understand, killing people is a rather "basic" business for a professional. In the Thunderball novel, I even think I remember that Bond himself acknowledges it would be quite easy to have him killed by a pro. I thought that cold blood killing, not as an occasional requirement but as a "daily job", required a particular state of mind more than particular "elite" skills.

I'm a bit disappointed with this idea of the 00s as kind of thugs... I preferred the "elite spy, who is licenced to kill if necessary" far more than the "elite killer, who is licenced to spy if necessary".

What do you think?

I agree with you. Bond as a cold-blooded assassin or simply a cold-blooded killer (for his own personal reasons0 is not very appealing to me.

[Eric Stromberg]

I'd like to think of 007 as a spy who has to ocassionally drop the hammer on someone who jeopordizes his mission, but it doesn't really ring true.

I'm not qualified to comment on the book series, but the movie-Bond conducts very little in the way of espionage. He uses detective skills to track people down, but not much surveilling or collecting (or stealing) of intelligence information is depicted. He's more of a commando than anything else, an agent of his government sent to blow up operations and kill the enemy. And perhaps it's telling that he's not known in his world for his spying abilities but rather for his license and his propensity for killing.

[00Twelve]

Killing is only one of the duties Bond may be asked to perform during the course of a mission. He is not strictly an assassin. Because he does have to be prepared to eliminate someone on any given assignment, he has to be a professional about it, and therefore must be physically and psychologically able to do so. It would seem that those who are able would be considered somewhat of a special unit, whether it means "elite" or not. Those who do not carry the 00 number do not have permission to kill for the sake of Queen and country and so do not have to be so ready to have to do such a thing. Hence Bond was chosen because of his physical and psychological ability to do what many cannot (not to mention his national loyalty and general intelligence).

[Eric Stromberg]

And Scaramanga had labeled both Bond and himself as assasins. Bond seemed a little ticked off by this comparison.

I saw that film recently and agree. I also considered that perhaps his reaction was more along the lines of Scaramanga implying that Bond killing for his government is not appreciably different from killing for hit money. I don't think Bond is the type to BS himself about what he does for a living, but he would also see Scaramanga as a very different kind of killer.

[Stuart]

For years I have thought of Bond as a troubleshooter (pun intended) that, as Fleming puts it, 'is fired across the world like a projectile against some distant target of M.'s choosing'.

That quote may not be exact.

[jaguar007]

And Scaramanga had labeled both Bond and himself as assasins. Bond seemed a little ticked off by this comparison.

I saw that film recently and agree. I also considered that perhaps his reaction was more along the lines of Scaramanga implying that Bond killing for his government is not appreciably different from killing for hit money. I don't think Bond is the type to BS himself about what he does for a living, but he would also see Scaramanga as a very different kind of killer.

It's kind of like the line from True Lies:

" you have killed people"
" yes, but they were all bad"

[Aris007]

Back in the 50s and the 60s things were different. Fleming caught the idea of Bond when he served in the Navy during WWII. At that time there was death everywhere. Secret agents weren't used only for spying but many times for killing enemy agents and important marks.

After the end of WWII there was th Cold War. There were KGB agents CIA all over the place and I'm sure that both services had something like a OO section with elite agents that were meant to kill!

Fleming was influenced by this situation and that's how Bond was created! Today things have changed. Spies as we know them today are basically used for stealing reports and so. Thery're main cause is not to kill.

So I believe that Bond is a "Cold War relic", but he's not a clear assassin!

Maybe the most characteristic scene of spying is in OHMSS in Gumbold's ofice.

[Colossus]

I agree that i always viewed Bond as a spy instead of assassin. Also thought the "2 kills for 00 status" was silly.

[darkpath]

I'd like to suggest that perhaps what is special about the 00 section is that unlike a conventional operative where armed support or end effecting is handed off to military spec ops operators such as SBS, that a 00 combines both HUMINT with immediate capability, judgement, and proven loyalty to deal with a threat force or enemy operator directly. He or she combines both functionality, and that makes them special.

[Tybre]

I like to the think of 00 Section as being like FOXHOUND -- a unit that combines the combat skills of the Special Forces with the stealth/spying skills of a highly trained CIA operative. Certainly seems to hit the nail on the head, no?