posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by RealSpoke
He can kill you legally, you realize this right?
It’s really not quite as simple as that, the legal justification for these operations is very complex covering both domestic and international law.
First of all it is important to realise that executive order 12333, which prohibits American sanctioned assassination is still applicable and in
force. However during the Clinton administration following the attacks on the American embassies the language used was somewhat relaxed to make
possible the “targeted killing” of terrorist suspects.
There is a difference between “targeted killing” and “assassination”, assassination usually refers to the act of murder of individuals by some
kind of covert means usually as part of some kind of political agenda (the exact definition is a legal and academic midfield.). Assassination is still
outlawed in America, however targeted killing is not seen as assassination because it is a killing that America argues has taken place in an act of
self-defence. It can simply be put as an act of self-defence, much like a sniper on the battle field shooting at the enemy who is setting up a mortar
For me the logic that the Americans have applied hear is still tantamount to being wrong unless they know in advance that the individual being
targeted for killing is planning an attack. I find it very hard to believe that it is possible they have this type of intelligence for every drone
attack and therefore it is inevitable that some of these attacks are state sanctioned assassination in the guise of targeted killing.
Like I have said the entire issue around “targeted killing” is a legal mess but fundamentally POTUS does not have the authority to say “Bob down
the road is to be killed by a drone”, it really is not a simple as that.