This may be a purely academic discussion and maybe not even that, but…. I read the following article in Secrecy News which is a well regarded national security publication of the American Federation of Scientists. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/02/cia_hit_lists.html
It discusses a Washington Post article from 27 January which discusses a “Target List” maintained by the CIA and JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) of named Terrorist Suspects to be killed or captured. The Post stated that there were 3 names of American Citizens on this list, but the CIA responded saying that those names were not on it’s list. Well this sounds rather like political assassination in many ways. I was under the mistaken impression that the Church Committee findings and resulting 1976 Executive Order 11905, from President Ford, banning assassinations, was still in effect. In reality this order has been changed at least three times. The chronology of which is here http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21037.pdf <http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21037.pdf> Once in 1978 by President Carter with E.O. 12036, which was clarified by President Regan in 1981 with E.O. 12333 which further prohibited any indirect participation in assassinations by anyone employed by, or acting on the behalf of the US Government. No doubt the CIA quickly made some new friends after President Ford’s directive. But here’s the rub, The term ”assassination” is not defined in E.O. 12333, nor was it defined in the predecessor orders. In general, it appears that an assassination may be viewed as an intentional killing of a targeted individual committed for political purposes. However, the scope of the term is the subject of numerous interpretations, on two points primarily. Either generally without regard to time and place, and depending upon whether the killing takes place in time of war or peace. The latter presumably meaning during a declaration of war, but that is not defined anywhere either. It could be concluded that the Ford E.O. and its successors were responding to concerns raised with respect to killing of foreign officials or heads of state, and may not have been intended to extend to the killing of others, such as the now infamous “enemy combatants”. That interpretation seems consistent with the focus of the Church Committee’s investigation, to which the Ford executive order responded. Rendering this issue completely obfuscated, is the Bush Administration conclusion that these previous orders did not apply to “named terrorists”. In this way Mr. Bush, effectively circumvented the legal constraints on clandestine killing missions imposed since the Church committee investigation. According to senior government officials, again quoted by the Washington Post, Mr. Bush signed an order known as an “intelligence finding", which broadens the list of potential targets beyond Bin Laden and his immediate circle of some 15 operational planners — and beyond Afghanistan. SecDef. Donald Rumsfeld then said, "It is not possible to defend yourself against terrorists at every single location in the world and at every single moment….. "The only way to deal with terrorists is to take the battle to them and find them and root them out and that's self-defense. We're going after these people and their organizations and capabilities and to stop them killing Americans." Now I’m probably a little more “Hawk” than “Dove”, but his seems much more like offence than defense to me. Perhaps Rummy was never much of a team-sports guy. So where is this all going you ask. In order for us to effectively implement a fair and just national security program, we need to hold ourselves to a much higher standard with respect to the use of lethal force beyond our borders. If we believe that our American justice System is the best and highest existing model for the fair treatment of humanity (and I do), then we should apply it. Anyone is justified in the use of deadly force when confronted with an immediate and lethal threat. On the other hand, if Willy McCoy shoots uncle Hatfield and runs off, you are not justified in firing up your Tomahawk Missile or Predator Drone and blowing him up in his Land Rover at the local Walmart, collateral damages be damned. If we want to be viewed by the world as trustworthy and just democracy, we might try a better approach than employing the same terrorist tactics against our aggressors.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 04:48PM 
, says spying is pervasive in corporate America and especially on Wall Street as firms try to get a competitive advantage against each other. View the interview from 
