Originally posted by skyredoubt Sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "war" too far. We don't have a war with Yemen and Yemen is not a war zone. That there exists an organization that is an enemy of the United States does not in itself constitute "war". IT is just too slippery a slope.
Basically, it goes back to the point of whether there was ever enough due process given the circumstances. Yes, it is about balancing national security, with its need for secrecy, and the lofty ideas of justice and due process. Gene, I can you you trying to strike the balance, but I believe that you're coming on the wrong side here. Ask yourself this: would Obama the candidate have approved of the assassination? Of course, we cannot be sure, but my best guess is he wouldn't have. Not that it proves anything, but it is food for thought.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the War paradigm. I think a "war" on a tactic or a substance or the like is rhetorical and can't be used as a legal basis. On the other hand, "War" 200 years ago meant two nations declaring a war in writing, lining up their armies in pretty uniforms and shooting at each other across an open field. When that "war" came to the New World and guys in buckskin started shooting from behind trees, it had to be redefined.
No definition of war has ever required that the fighting all occur on the land of one of the combatants, so the part about Yemen being at war is a bit of a red herring. Sticking to a definition of "war" that requires all combatants to be soldiers of a country with contiguous borders recognized by international law or the like is also as antiquated as the muzzle loaders in the field. An organization with self-identified members which openly declares war and kills our citizens is at war even if it does not control a body of contiguous land. If controlling land is considered necessary for a party to be at "war" then there could never be a war with rebels or guerrillas or a government in exile.
BTW, I'm not a fan of the slippery slope as an argument for anything. The world is exists in shades and we have to pick the spot to hold our ground based on the facts of the particular situation, not what could be the next step or the step after that. Also, Obama the candidate was pretty consistent with this approach, and he caught some attention when he stated that he would go into Pakistan to pursue AQ.
Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt - Times Online
If there were an effective world court created for this sort of thing, then I would be all for it. There isn't. We are stuck with war.