If the war is over, then assassination would seem to be possible breach of the Geneva convention.
If the war isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate? The U.S. declared war on the concept "Terrorism" during Bush Jr's presidency, not on specific terrorists or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on "drugs" during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because I'm in favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think Congress or the president should have a right to declare war on something that cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete destruction, or victory.
I am a little concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own citizens without due trial, although I understand there are conditions.
well the point you are missing is , it takes place outside a war context. AlQaida is not the army of afghanistan , in fact most of its members are saudis , egyptians or from yemen. So the Geneva convention "doesnt apply" , that's the why of the enemy combattant status and all that illegal crap made legal.
If the war isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate? The U.S. declared war on the concept "Terrorism" during Bush Jr's presidency, not on specific terrorists or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on "drugs" during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because I'm in favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think Congress or the president should have a right to declare war on something that cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete destruction, or victory.
I am a little concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own citizens without due trial, although I understand there are conditions.