GrahamY: << we appear to be quite happy for unmanned drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan to blow-up the odd wedding party at the same time as they assassinate members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban >>

Says who? I'm certainly not happy about noncombatant civilians being murdered by "our" allies.

<< Is assassination of national enemies legitimate, and if so, under what circumstances? >>

I think that killing "national enemies" is only legitimate when conducted under the rules of engagement of a declared war between sovereign States. Otherwise we assent to State-sponsored murder of people the State decides it wants to eradicate, not to mention excusing all the "collateral damage" involved.

It would have been quite legitimate for the Allies to have assassinated Hitler during WW2, but not prior to the declaration of war. I note that war doesn't seem to be formally declared by States these days, which blurs the issue somewhat.

Mind you, the creation of such a grey area where murder can be claimed to be legitimate in certain circumstances is probably why we don't formally declare war any more.

CJ I was judging our approval of assassination on the basis of the column inches in newspapers and the decibels in broadcast devoted to decrying it. I know some people aren't happy with the drones, including me, but we don't make a lot of noise about it.

The issue of Australian passports being used seems a bit trivial to me. Passports are hijacked all the time. I think it is a measure of the shallowness of the debate that it needs to use this issue as the basis.

What is shallow about the possibility of a friendly ally sanctioning the forging of Australian passports?

Our own Foreign minister does not appear to think the issue shallow.

I agree with pelican, the highjacking of Australian passports is a serious issue, particularly when the holders of those passports are linked with violent international acts. The fact that the Australian Government has made it clear that the three Australians embroiled in the intrigue have nothing to do with it, will save them from possible retribution, even though such retribution would have had no solid foundation. It's important for all Australian citizens that the Government speak up about it in order to protect the innocent and our generally good name.

I think the real criticism of Rudd - and all the governments before his - is that he only did this when forced to look for a diversion to other issues. Whereas previous Governments dropped it in the too-hard basket.

But, we'll take it any way it comes.

GrahamY
I am with CJ on this.
Column inches?! shrill screams?!

The media as a barometer, of the depth of support for an issue, is a whole other subject. Suffice it to register, that it's grossly flawed and so superficial as not worthy of being in the same context as accuracy/objective justification. The one exception maybe elections, they're about winning political seats, not accurate public opinion or objectivity.

One could suggest that is the equivalent of letting the inmates run the asylum or justifying a lynch mob's behaviour. Democracy is based on the weight of the mass, not the hysterical shrieks of self-interest and/or ignorance of a noisy minority.

The question is “is Assassination as a tool of foreign policy acceptable and why?”

My view is clear no it isn't !

I think it's a bogus argument to bring in “predator “ activities in order to blur the lines they're wrong in that they're indiscriminate. e.g. would you accept the police using a “predator” to attack an alleged paedophile killer in a block of flats or where there was possible 'collateral damage'?

In short the predator used as an attack weapon where there is a risk of 'collateral damage is indefensible.
As is it's use in Palestine in similar circumstances.

I sanction lethal force against a violent perpetrator by the authorised force ? If, there is no other way.

The striking inside a third country *without their authority* is a criminal act against the person, the law in both countries and national sovereignty.

It makes a mockery of the striking counties pretensions of being a law abiding country. therefore such actions are rogue in an international sense. Yes, by that definition the US's predator attacks maybe hypercritical and even rogue.

Palestine isn't a member of the UN nor is it a recognised country with a nationally recognised army. Therefore irrespective of their names Hamas, Taliban, RIRA etc. are organised violent criminals and have no right to speak for the country anymore than the Mafia for Italy.

Mosad I forgive you.
I admire you.
I wish western country's valued their peoples lives as much as you do.
Hey!
I made it! red neck nut at last!
No realist, the dead person would not for a second think about methods he used to murder others.
Grow up people, these folk play by no rules why should we?