> Targeted assassination is, as the name suggests, aimed at a specific person, not because they are currently engaged in firing guns, hijacking planes, taking hostages, and so on, but because "intelligence suggests" that this person has been or could be involved with threats at some point.
Even that [targeted assassination] has previously been used in a purely military context though (lookup what happened to Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy, not to mention counter-sniper activities throughout the past hundred years).
I have to agree with anigbrown here, if Congress or the judiciary doesn't give direction to the contrary then the Article II powers of the Commander-in-Chief can give some extremely broad powers to him with only a little bit of imagination required.
If that's something that scares Congress then they need to clip the wings early instead of whining about interpretation of law (especially interpretation at the farthest reaches of plausibility).
Even that [targeted assassination] has previously been used in a purely military context though (lookup what happened to Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy, not to mention counter-sniper activities throughout the past hundred years).
I have to agree with anigbrown here, if Congress or the judiciary doesn't give direction to the contrary then the Article II powers of the Commander-in-Chief can give some extremely broad powers to him with only a little bit of imagination required.
If that's something that scares Congress then they need to clip the wings early instead of whining about interpretation of law (especially interpretation at the farthest reaches of plausibility).