Typical of your responses on this issue, we're talking about the CIA ratcheting up it's capabilities of drive-by assassination ("It's just war" you say?) in direct conflict with stated policy and you attempt to deflect by bringing up the "safe" contention that you vaguely "oppose" torture. Unless you think that being "against torture" somehow makes it okay to be "for" this latest escalation (like maybe you have enough "left points" saved up?), I'm missing your point.
> But it is true that my support for taking out those who were
> taken out (identified not only by the evil CIA but by Yemeni
> officials, contacts and tribesmen on the ground) ...
Yes, you've provided some "proof" from USA Today. Swell. So that just about wraps it up then, huh? Not only are you okay with the Executive becoming the Judicial, you're even more okay with it because you've stepped in as the jury and concur with the sentence. "Push that button, baby; I know I would!" you say from your armchair.
> Of course I care about how the US wages war in the future.
But this way seems okay to you? I don't know about you, but I'd like my wars (let's suspend judgement for a moment and let you "win" that "this is just a war") to be fought by the military; the CIA's track record of "fighting war" seems a little, um, spotty.
You seem a little surprised that anyone would question this latest activity. And then you double-up your surprise by conflating it with the General Evildoer Eradication Prime Directive.