4 ms·
The first one, because he was a young boy. The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen. R
by ameister14 8y ago
The first one, because he was a young boy. The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen.
Regardless, not taking action at that time would likely have been better. They were US citizens, their rights were abrogated and they were killed illegally.
- darawk 8y ago> The first one, because he was a young boy He was a 16 year old Al Qaeda member who was the son of a leader of the group. > The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen. Ever? > Regardless, not taking action at that time would likely have been better. They were US citizens, their rights were abrogated and they were killed illegally. Agree that because they were US citizens they should have been given due process, or at the very least, the legal rationale for their killing should have been subject to public scrutiny. But I don't think this really makes the case against drone strikes as a tool.
- ameister14 8y ago>Ever? Yes. You could make the argument that targeted strikes authorized by a single person are acceptable in a state of war (which we are not in), but even with that an assassination should have checks on it, always.
- darawk 8y agoI would certainly like assassination to have checks on it, all else equal. But do you really think that's practical?
- ameister14 8y agoYes. Assassinations take time to plan and execute. Why would it not be practical?
- darawk 8y agoWell, I guess it depends on what you mean by a 'check'. I was assuming you meant a congressional panel voting on it or something. If that's not what you mean, and all you meant was some degree of bureaucracy involved, then I think we're in agreement.