One of the papers that I debated on not editing and resubmitting, talks about the debate and distinction between “assassinations” and “targeted killings”
In 1998, Bill Clinton, famously noted that any assassination bans wouldn’t apply to military targets like Bin Laden
In 1998, Bill Clinton, famously noted that any assassination bans wouldn’t apply to military targets like Bin Laden
and that if he died that way (via assasination) it would be considered by the US as having carried out “pre-emptive self-defence.”
When the AUMF was passed in 2001, Bill Clinton’s assassination interpretation was accepted and largely uncontested.
When the AUMF was passed in 2001, Bill Clinton’s assassination interpretation was accepted and largely uncontested.
“Assassinations” then came to be widely accepted amongst US intelligence to the public as “targeted killings” (which hides that drones mess up a lot from the public) which comes across as more effective and efficient at getting a targeted “bad person”
Of course under Obama, this is all convenient— because he carried out the most drone assassinations, or “targeted killings” (which given the name and the actual fallacy of it— allowed all civilians killed by drones as enemy combatants killed after the fact)
Today, the US is the only country doing mass assassinations— largely recognized as illegal— using drones. Able to successfully sell it to its people through mass media propaganda and non-transparency that exists in the departments whose aim is to “protect” them
(Dinner stayed in 😁) the reason that I need to “fix” this paper is reviewers dislike that I give more weight to moral arguments over legal ones.
IMO, legal definitions of words are intentionally vague, which is why the West (& Israel) aren’t held accountable for assassinations
IMO, legal definitions of words are intentionally vague, which is why the West (& Israel) aren’t held accountable for assassinations
International law is a joke — in terms of who it can hold accountable — since those w/power and their allies get to write those laws, have a heavy hand in interpreting them, thus giving themselves a lot of space to break it... knowing no one can actually hold them accountable
“When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word far from its norm English usage is to lie.” craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/…
