I wonder if someone will have courage to kill a terrorist in US soil, just to show US they can do like US do to another countries.
"China considered using a drone strike in a mountainous region of Southeast Asia to kill a Myanmar drug lord wanted in the murders of 13 Chinese sailors, but decided instead to capture him alive, according to an influential state-run newspaper."
They eventually caught the guy and he was tried, found guilty, and executed yesterday[2].
"A notorious drug lord told how he longed for his mother in a chilling final interview - before being marched to his death live on Chinese television. Burmese gangster Naw Kham was one of four death row prisoners paraded before news cameras in China today as they were escorted to an execution chamber in Yunnan province."
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/world/asia/chinese-plan-to...;
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286460/China-broadc...
Seeing as no trial and nothing official of the sort has been taken place in drone attacks, judicially and morally it amounts to killing an arbitrary citizen of a sovereign nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
I am sure US Dept of State will understand if South American drones fly around Miami for a while and blast some terrorists.
Anyway my point is assassination with drones is hard and always has collateral - but if the target is in an area that is not actively protecting him then the traditional methods of walking up and shooting him is much more viable. America has no such areas protecting terrorists (unless maybe some areas with the KKK but hardly. Oh and actual members of go ernment but that's playing with the definition of terrorist too much)
I suspect it happens more than we hear about (Litveneko and the polonium being the obvious case)
So the "assassination" part doesn't annoy you much?
Much more that the target can be anybody some dumbness in high offices in a single country declared "guilty".
Firstly the easy answer: I would certainly prefer assassination over war.
Secondly the comeback: Assassination is simply the extra-territorial equivalent of the death penalty - how you feel about the death penalty will influence how you feel about assassination
Lastly - well the confusion - the above kind of says assassination is a Good Thing. But the Litvenunko affair shows just how hard this is as a problem - Russian government killed a man under the protection of the UK government and we could do little more than protest. In a world of assassination as an accepted action we would now be on our forth Prime Minister and Russia would be looking for their next president.
I cannot say if that's a good or a bad thing. Certainly it would favour Saddam over Bush.
In short, assassinating people is Wrong ! But assassinating the wrong people is more Wrong and usually counter-productive. As the old saw goes, "you want directions to Dublin? Well I wouldn't start from here if I are you"
I was thinking about this and I wonder if "no such thing as bad PR" applies here as well. Think about it, this is done by people who get paid to blast away "terrorists". It involves both government contractors who build drones working with those who operate them (presumably pretty close relationship). Declaring that "all terrorists are done and we are closing up shop" is like firing themselves. I know Africa is hot now and L3 is hiring linguists for it, but why not milk the ME cow for all it's worth right. If one strike at wedding produces 10 more terrorist leaders -- that is like investing in future growth. They would be silly not to do it.
> suspect it happens more than we hear about (Litveneko and the polonium being the obvious case)
Except that in that case the goal seems to be exactly for as many as possible to hear about it. These people are not stupid, they know to "suicide" and accidenta-kill people. Using something as exotic as Po-210 is not stupidity, the point was to send a strong warning to any would be defectors. It is a message saying you betray us, we'll find you and assassinate you.