There has been controversy during the Obama administration because of the use of assassinations, sometimes by drone, in furthering military objectives.
What makes it scarier, though, is the way that the Obama Whitehouse characterizes the “extra” people who were killed (the non-targets). When someone is killed because they were in the general vicinity of the targeted individual, that person is classified as an enemy killed in action, even when the administration doesn’t know who that person is.
The use of this kind of terminology is scary because it justifies this administration’s killing of people without due process of law (you know, a trial by jury), and it allows this administration to kill whoever they want and justify it by basically saying, “Hey, they shouldn’t have been there anyway!” as if they are guilty by association, guilty by sheer proximity.
Who know? Maybe that reasoning could be used to justify bombing a mall here in the U.S. because the mall had a serial killer somewhere on the property! Those people shouldn’t have been near a serial killer, even if they didn’t know who the killer was!
Listen to Ron Paul talk about this:
What do you think: Are these assassinations justified or are we right to be concerned? Sound off below.