Here is what the Attorney General says is necessary (or maybe not so necessary), for a targeted killing:
First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
The first condition presupposes the target is "a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces," or some such thing--which is precisely what the government
should have to prove in a trial.
The feasibility of capture, of course, is determined entirely by the president and his advisers. Presumably, this would rule out targeted killings inside this country, since capture would be "feasible," but I don't see much guarantee of that.
And the imminence of the threat posed by the alleged terrorist? Well, that is determined by a "thorough and careful review" by the Executive Branch, with no role by either the legislative or the judicial branches.
What it boils down to is that Eric Holder claims that Congress, by authorizing the use of military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has given the President the power to order the execution of anyone he says is a terrorist, wherever that person may be found with the possible exception of those found within the U.S.
So much for the concept of due process.
Onward and upward,
airforce
