"Assassination"

[It is somewhat striking that many quote the likes of Glenn Greenwald with approval, people who in part make LEGAL cases the various things Bush and Obama are doing is wrong and when some do the same they are disdainfully said to be using "legalisms."  Not that I merely made a legal case, but when I read "murder" etc., legality does come to mind.  

As to "morally," the law tends to overlap there and I repeatedly note that I'm against the general policy used here, citizen or no citizens.  "Murder" and "political" still has meaning.  Finally, the comment makes dubious assumptions that -- this happens too much -- if the other side made, it would be disdained as well.  This talking past each other happens all too often and it is one of the biggest problems with these types of discussions.] 

I was challenged by my opposition of this word and it's worthwhile to respond:

DocAmazing

Okay, Joe, define "assassination" then.  Back at LG&M, I've got three definitions, taken from politically neutral sources.  All encompass what was done to al-Awlaki. 

My primary concern is that the word is used by some to underline that we are doing something illegal here. Like "murder," implies illegitimacy. The thread referenced suggests that it can be legitimate. I guess, also, war can be hell, simply "murder," and be legal too. As someone at TalkLeft noted:

While using the appropriate word in this case - "assassination" - is intended to shock, and it definitely jars, the REAL issue is what is the battlefield?

But, before I go there, it is suggested that I look at some definitions. Sure. The first definition is "Assassination is a killing of a prominent person for political or ideological reasons." Doesn't work without argument. That is, if you want to dispute that al-Awlaki was killed because he was an operational leader or in some other way a legitimate military target, fine. Say the official story is bogus or can't be trusted. Fine. But, it was not that he was killed for political or ideological reasons ala the CIA helping with the killing of various political leaders. And, this is a decent definition -- it is what I basically think of as "assassination."

A second definition: "Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official." Okay. Again, doesn't seem to apply, unless you assume various things. If this is a legal killing, as I argue it reasonably can said to be, it isn't "murder." I'm supposed to (per the thread) being trying to "dodge" something here. Quoting me a definition citing "murder" when I'm arguing this is legal, which "murder" is not, doesn't help explain me much there. Now, as I said, as with abortion and the death penalty, you can disagree with the law and call it "murder." But, I'm using it in a legal sense in response to those who those who imply it is not. And, the second part is quite questionable too. There was some "provocation."

Again, I can work with that definition, though the first one is probably better. Third, Wikipedia: An assassination is “to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons.”[1][2] An additional definition is “the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons.” Again, if you want to call this "murder" go right ahead, some think killing OBL was "murder." But, the argument here is that it is not. This wasn't "for hire" either, nor again, "political," unless the term is stretched to a degree that war itself ("politics by other means") can mean that, which isn't quite how the law uses the word. Since we are annoyed when others stretch words in that sense, I wish to be consistent.

The Wikipedia entry cited includes this:

On the other hand, Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, in his 2010 book entitled The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, writes: "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts".[31] The use of the term assassination is opposed, as it denotes murder, whereas the terrorists are targeted in self-defense, and thus it is viewed as a killing, but not a crime.[33] Judge Abraham Sofaer, former federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote on the subject:

When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States.... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests.... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.

An executive order was put in place barring "assassination." A CRS Report discussed it (h/t). The report noted:

In general, it appears that an assassination may be viewed as an intentional killing of a targeted individual committed for political purposes.

The idea that comes to mind is the CIA trying to kill Castro, not the reasons summarized in the NYT article cited yesterday. The report goes on:

In time of war, assassination appears to be distinguished in some discussions from cases of lawful killing, because the former is carried out in a “treacherous” manner.10 “Treacherous” is not defined in the Hague Convention IV, but does not appear to be interpreted to foreclose operations in time of war involving the element of surprise.11 However, putting a price on the head of an enemy appears to be regarded by some as an act which would render a resulting killing an assassination, as distinguished from a lawful attack on legitimate military targets, including the enemy chain of command.

I'm quite willing to admit to some debate here and "assassination" can have a colloquial or argumentative (assuming it was illegal, not military related) application, but that is basically where I'm coming from. Since this is not "murder" or "political" (unless the word is stretch severely), the definitions if fine, don't seem to apply. It is illegal to "assassinate" people.

And, even colloquially, I myself would use the word in respect to some political hit, such as the "assassination" of Abraham Lincoln or some opposition leader of the Popular Front, that is a civilian that has protected status as a noncombatant. Killing someone pursuant to his position in an organization Congress and the Supreme Court recognizes we are in armed conflict with for the reasons spelled out in detail yesterday doesn't do it.