re: #434 kirkspencer

Let’s start with the issue of my problem with assassinations. The practical is the stated reason Reagan put them in EO12333. If you do them you have no moral ground on which to stand when others use them against you.

Rather than referring to someone else, why can’t you just state your objection in your own terms? Since EO12333 doesn’t define assassination, it’s not really satisfactory as a reference.

And the “It’s easier” argument is really a non-starter. At best, it’s a slippery slope fallacy. At worst, it’s a counter-argument; in general, we want to use things at are easier. Is your argument just that it shouldn’t be the intelligence services using these drones, that it should be military and have the oversight military operations do?

Now, why do I think snipers are a gray area? Because we can and do (historically) send snipers against civilians who directly assist or control the military in war. On the one hand they’re not military. On the other it is under color of war and they are directly contributing.

Can you give an example? For example, would you consider the Nazi leadership to be ‘civilians’? Do you think that the leadership of the countries in WWII were not legitimate targets for the other nations, but only the schmucks getting trenchfoot in the forests were?