Re: Another Al Qaeda leader is worm food.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Phil1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The topic
"Another Al Qaeda leader is worm food."
"The ethics and realpolitik of assassination"
..."Concern about this question I think underlies my discomfort with Mr Somin's sensible argument as well as the widespread official condemnation of "extrajudicial" and "unlawful" targeted killings. As Hobbes taught, if private reason is authoritative—if each is left to judge for herself what is right—we are left with a chaos of conflicting claims. In that case it seems that "justice" boils down to Thrasymachus' slogan: "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger".
Because America is generally "the stronger", many Americans are pretty satisfied with Thrasymachean international justice. In a Thrasymachean world, America's authority to declare, as Mr Obama did declare, that "justice has been done" through American assassination is based ultimately upon America's superior strength. A civil global order would require that private reason be subordinated to public reason—that national judgment be subordinated to international law. The aspiration to an order of global public reason expressed in the quotations offered up by Mr Dershowitz often is, as Mr Dershowitz argues, cynically opportunistic. But it is just as often admirably authentic.
The silence of the usual critics of "illegal", "extrajudicial", targeted killing in the wake of America's killing of Osama bin Laden might reflect hypocrisy, sure. But this can be tough to distinguish from resignation to the fact that Mr Obama didn't submit his case for executing Mr bin Laden to some global civil authority because there isn't one and he didn't have to—because America's the biggest kid on the block and, ultimately, what America says goes. And, if it comes down to it, Britain, France, Italy, Russia and other powerful governments hope America will indulge their own kill-squad adventures with similar approving silences. Of course, if some aggrieved faction in the future seeks retribution through the targeted killing of one of these countries' leaders, that will be raw vengeance, that will be terrorism, that will be an international crime, because, like it or not, that's how it works. " Quote from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/targeted_killing The discussion arising from the title of this thread is, and I discuss other laws including the International laws arising from drone strikes on citizens other that solely U.S. ones.
The Italian case regarding the conviction of U.S. CIA operatives for illegal acts under Italian law.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/04/italian-judge-convicts-23-cia-kidnap-case/ </div></div>
Phil as I read what you typed above I think you're trying to say that you want to debate the broader issue of international law and drone strikes on anyone (you said--> <span style="font-style: italic">"I discuss other laws including the International laws arising from drone strikes on citizens other that solely U.S. ones."</span>)... is that why in every post you're adding all of this other info?
I'd be happy to debate that with you but we would most likely agree so it wouldn't be much of a debate.
I'm really confused about what specifically you're getting at because I'm having a hard time tying in all of your peripheral information that is irrelevant at least in terms of my 5th ademd argument. Please clarify. ???
