re: #270 yoshicastmaster

This looks like the US is involved in the assassination of heads of state- that we are targeting Gaddafi. I’m not sure I agree with this. Exec Order 12333 prohibiting assassination had some sense to it.

I also don’t understand the comments that suggest Gaddafi should not be near his family during the war. While I think it’s reckless, I don’t think he expected to be targeted by NATO. We are in three wars, but we don’t expect the President to live apart from his family. And we would be rightly horrified by any attack on the Presidential family, even one that targeted the President.

Whatever advantages we claim for our efforts will be reasonably claimed by those we fight. In fact, we actually sanction such tactics when we use them. The targeting and assassination of a head of state crosses a dangerous line.

Although, I suppose if the President can still authorize the killing of American citizens without trial and regardless of their proximity to a battlefield (which is still my understanding), perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that the US will become involved in the assassinations of heads of state. When we have surrendered due process for ourselves, why would we give anything like it to our enemies?

(and to think, my LGF Karma had just been improving…)

1. I don’t know what the law on this matter is, precisely, but I will say that as far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to kill Gaddafi can do so, and I will sleep soundly. I’m prepared to engage in a discussion of the legal ramifications. Ethically, I’m not bothered.

2. He knew damn well he’d be targeted by NATO, and if by some chance he didn’t, he knew damn well the rebels would be coming after his ass. He made a tactical decision there. Not because there is some special Middle Eastern madness there—Magda Goebbels always comes to mind when people get going on how Western it is to protect children—but because he is a cold, calculating SOB.