To kill America's enemies abroad is a duty of the CIA. No, not to lead poison Castro or Chavez, but those trying to target America and American citizens here and abroad are targets. The majority of those at Foggy Bottom don't like this, but then they also don't like much about America except when she has enough sense to send them to places like Bern and Paris where they feel they will get the chance to hobnob with those they consider peers. Fine with me. Better there than infecting corporations, education and the general gene pool here and it is a small price to pay. It'd be cheaper if their tickets were one-way.
The entire diplomatic corp could easily be replaced by just half the membership of the Future Farmers of America, Manhattan Chapter. They'd be more effective too, just by not stabbing the citizenry at every turn and soirée they attend.
While Madam Pelosi is trying to deflect attention about her lying about the CIA lying, she does agree with those that are aghast that the CIA was acting legally when they made plans to kill terror leaders abroad. No bad deed shall be punished, only good deeds.
The CIA Plan to Kill Al Qaeda Leaders
First, I'm delighted, of course, that the CIA post 9-11 was formulating plans to try and kill Al Qaeda leaders wherever they might be; if they weren't, I would certainly have a big question about what exactly the CIA value-added to national security is. Why would you have a CIA if they weren't trying to figure out covert ops to kill Al Qaeda leaders after 9-11? As for the distinction between inserting small teams or using Predators, recall that the US only began using Predators as a weapons platform in a semi-improvised way after 9-11. The obvious tactic was small team insertion, and only when it became clear that Predators could work, did the US move to that strategy.
Second, as to the international law issues involved in targeting Al Qaeda leaders, I will simply refer you over to a new paper, soon to appear as a book chapter in a volume edited by Benjamin Wittes on reforming counterterrorism policy, on targeted killing. That paper has a particular point, however. It says that of course the US targeted killings of Al Qaeda terrorists is a legal act of self defense under international law.
The longer term question to which the paper mostly addresses itself is whether, in the face of withering international legal criticism, from UN special rapporteurs, human rights groups, academics, etc. - what we might call the international "soft law" crowd - the US, and specifically the Obama administration, will insist on the traditional doctrines of self defense, including against terrorists who find safe haven in states that are unwilling or unable to deal with them. The problem specifically for the Obama administration is that on the one hand it has - correctly in my view, for strategic, legal, and humanitarian reasons - embraced targeted killings via Predator strikes.
So now, Obama is in a fix and now, it appears, that his charm isn't going to win over the Foggy Bottom crowd just as it hasn't won over anybody, but those now with buyer's remorse, aka, those that voted for him. The election of Obama was the biggest pig-in-a-poke decision made in this country, even bigger than Carter, in fact, even bigger than if Kerry or Gore had won. At least they were fairly direct about their half truths and "misstatements."
That there are those who cannot stand the heat of the kitchen nor stomach the breaking of eggs to make an omelet to fulfill their charge to protect us is misfeasance. Though malfeasance and nonfeasance appear in the mix, they are the bailiwick of the wanna-be-cooks at Foggy Bottom and Congress.
