Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com