That's part of the problem: we need a law (preferably a detailed one) spelling out a judicial branch check on assassinations proposed by the executive branch. That's how the U.S. Constitutional system of checks and balances is supposed to work. If we had that, then at least we would know that a quasi-independent eye had gone over the justifications and evidence related to a proposed assassination and given the okay or not.
Instead, our system is 'trust us'. And we know from the number of innocent prisoners in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram, and other U.S.-managed hellholes that the U.S. is wrong much more often than it is right about who is or isn't a 'bad guy'. fairleft
The only way I can see of justifying them would be to consider them to be precise military strikes that are part of a larger war effort, but if that's what they are, then "assassinations" are a poor name for them.
This is just one example of the inevitable lawlessness that the concept "war on terror" leads to. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
