Hacker News Reader

Comment by codex | Hacker News Reader

This isn't really any different from the President authorizing the Air Force to shoot down a civilian airliner in a 9/11-like scenario, in order to prevent mass casualties. If one is legal, the other is also legal.

View on HN

Drone strikes are messy and result in mass casualties themselves.

Another thing, semantics are the last thing you want to rely on for protection from a government sanctioned assassination.

You're always reliant on semantics for protection under the law. Laws are words, and semantics boils down to what words mean. For example, if we take "freedom of speech" to mean "the ability to order whatever you want at McDonald's," your free speech is drastically abridged. The Constitution and the laws are all collections of words whose application is entirely dependent on semantics.

This is why you wouldn't rely on semantics to protect your freedom of speech either, or any protection under law for that matter.

Then you need to stop talking in circles and state what you mean clearly. If you weren't depending on the Constitution, the law or declared policy (which are all literally meaningless without semantics) to protect you from governmental drone strikes, how does this development make you any more or less dependent on semantics?

The way law is structured, you can reach any conclusion. This means if you are relying on law to protect you from government sanctioned assassination, the constitution is only going to protect you if it can physically deflect a hellfire missile.

If the government wants it to be legal to assassinate you, they will make it so.

edit: I can't help but appreciate the fact that you and I are arguing over my usage of the word semantics.

You know, that's actually a pretty valid scenario. I hope that's what he was thinking of, and not something else.

Given that he cited that precise example, one would assume he was thinking of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com