[Enra2]

I don't like deontological ethics, I especially don't like this sloppy kind. It seems extremely implausible that the moral benefits of a crime could never outweigh its cost. The US has assassinated A LOT of al Qaeda and Taliban members in the "war on terror", is it more permissible if they do it with a drone (even if it does cause more collateral damage) because it just "seems more like war" than the James Bond stuff Mossad has been up to?

[rdtsc]

> The US has assassinated A LOT of al Qaeda and Taliban members in the "war on terror",

I don't like the "if we do it, it's ok" ethics though. So if US does and does it A LOT (sic) then it's ok?

[Enra2]

I'm not american. Not a big fan of US foreign policy either. My point is that being upset about assassination of foreign leaders because it is "a crime" looks pretty silly unless you are a full blown pacifist (and thus not OK with any of the killing states at war have done). In that case you look pretty silly anyway.