Yesterday, in response to Syrian leader Bashar al Assad's use of Sarin gas against his own people, the US fired 50 Cruse missiles against a Syrian airfield. Syria, Russia and Iran have condemned the attack, but the rest of the world's leaders have almost universally hailed it as a measured response to a reprehensible act.
It seems to me that a more appropriate response would be to take out Assad himself.
Whenever this is mentioned, media quickly points out that this would be a violation of international law. I don't think that is true. Assassination of a head of state has been considered a no-no since about the 17th century, but only if the nations involved are not at war. Gerald Ford issued executive orders banning the CIA from assassinating foreign heads of state after a botched attempt on the life of Fidel Castro, but Reagan sent planes to bomb the home of Muammar Gaddafi.
I think the real reason going after a head of state is universally frowned upon is fear of reciprocity. It places a huge target on the back of the leader of the country that orders the hit.
But is it illegal.
No, it is not.
As Voltaire said, "Killing a man is murder unless it is done to the sound of trumpets."
In Assad's case, maybe it's time to strike up the band.