Prague was enemy territory, 1942 was wartime. Even so the fact that Churchill authorised one assasination it does not prove that it was lawful - he was of course a very right wing alcoholic manic-depressive which may from time to time have impaired his rationality. It certainly does not prove that this assassination was lawful.

What, Keith, do you expect the US to say? They invented the wholly spurious legal case for detention at Guantanamo Bay, precisely to prevent fair trial or habeas corpus.

It may turn out that both assassinations were good things - although in Heydrich's case I suspect the harm was already done so it was mere revenge - but that does not mean that they were lawful. Equally it may turn out that the present assassination was a bad thing, if the Arab spring turns into a winter of discontent, but that does not mean that it was unlawful.

You may believe that the US will never turn on the UK or others of its present allies. That is not a universal view. You may believe that it is "right" that the US can disobey the law but that people of a largely non-white or non-Xtian persuasion must not - but that is not a universal view.

I have asked you to explain a particular point you were trying to make. Would you kindly do so? At present I do not know what you were trying to say and cannot therefore respond if appropriate.