Skeptic Project

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491&page=1

And then:

http://www.abadss.com/forum/99-general-chit-chat/133992-obama-orders-hit-2-americans.html#post917013

Heh, I love how the abc headlines talks about how it has been authorized, under the right conditions of course. The second link, written by our good friend Sorcha Faal talks about how Obama had ordered two assassinations and that's why Blair quit. Any real news source able to confirm that? Or could it be he thought it was best to resign after the security blunders under his watch.

Personally speaking, I don't understand why an assassination would be necessary when they could just be arrested (for the same reasons they would have been assassinated) since they are on American grounds anyways.

I can't see this doing more good than harm. I mean, like the ABC article says... I'm sure only a handful of people meet the criteria for these assassinations, but just reading through the comments it's obvious to see how such a policy riles up other groups. The Tea Party might think they're next up on the list of terrorist organizations, etc. I'm no law expert, but is it because it's an act of war they don't have to be tried in court? I mean, during wars... we shoot soldiers first, not bring them in for arraignment, so is this the same thing? I don't know, I'm just not seeing a reason to not follow the procedure of arrest and trial.

Edit: I mean, I hate to use the slippery slope fallacy... but this one does seem like it could go that way, though I'm sure it won't ever be as extreme as some people say. And I doubt it will ever come to large organizations like the Tea Party or Political parties being targetted... but I mean, if it's for the protection of Americans they could just off some crime lords. And while I'm certainly not weeping for them, they deserve a fair trial just like the rest of us.