Not sure about the UK, but didn't the US recently publically assassinate a high official of another state (an Iranian general)?

As (insert expletive here) that was, it was more of an Act of War than just an assasination. So totally different, though I think it was immoral, strategically unsound, and stupid. Also loathable and with no regard for innocent lives.

An act of war implies the existence of a war. The USA is not at war with either Iran or Irak, so not sure how this could qualify (except that, had the roles been reversed, it would have definitely been seen as an act that can START a war).

You seem to have hit on a very important point: American's don't realize that, while their country is the #1 cause of terror and war around the world, its not 'legally at war', and therefore - laws of war that traditionally the public would understand, are simply not applicable.

This is another atrocity being committed on the general public by the military industrial criminal state. Doublethink and newspeak have been very skillfully applied to ensure a lack of culpability - however, to those of us who have had to dig innocent loved ones out from under America's piles of burning rubble, it is very, very clear that the American people are responsible for this mess, whether they understand their own laws or not.

Does the UK participate in any drone programs?

Yes, but that's a different kind of operation (they're run by the military).

The correct answer to my question is (if you go 40 rather than 20 years) that the bodies are very much buried in Northern Ireland (although the FRU was part of the British Army)

The drone assassinations by the UK are extrajudicial killings, not military operations.

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/britains-secret-as...

So those are different assasinations?

The military and intelligence services are rather fuzzy though, aren't they? The CIA uses drones, they regularly employ SEAL teams.

The CIA storing brown people in black sites is heinous but there is a certain logic to the operation, as opposed to bumping off defectors which is purely "political". Drone strikes are an ugly solution to an awful situation (this administration is pushing the boundary's of "solution" but still - Trump bombs more than Obama & Bush combined IIRC + Soulemani )

The Russians have always been much better at espionage than the west, that's why they're bolder with these public hits.

It is indeed fuzzy

The destruction of Jewish businesses on Kristallnacht 'made a lot of sense' to many Germans at the time. Are you so sure you want to use this particular point to pivot your argument?

There is NO logic to violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor any of the myriad laws against extrajudicial killing, rendition and torture. It defies logic, unless the real intent is to foment the conditions ripe for yet more, endless war.

I think drone strikes were a stupid solution the first time they killed a bunch of people who just happened to stand next to the intended target. Then they went downhill from there. (Edit: for instance going after someone based on very questionable intel.)

Also I think espionage is (and I think I agree, the Soviets were better at infiltration probably) orthogonal to bold public hits. The public hits are an intimidation tactic.