The buzz feed of my my article on presidential-ordered assassinations contained a couple comments I thought some readers might be interested in. So I’ll just quote them here:
Friend – This does say “capture or kill”. Not sure about the legal precedent of first or last resort on this, but I assume they would tend toward “capture” over “kill” if they could.
I feel like there are extenuating circumstances when dealing with somebody who has gone over to foreign soil and is actively working with foreign agencies to commit violence against the United States (not just it’s citizens, but the country as a whole). I have to admit, though, that I would feel a lot better about this had he sought some kind of legislative action to try him for treason (or whatever is appropriate) first.
Punning Pundit- I do understand those extenuation circumstance, and I think we need laws or agreements covering them. If a president wants sole authority do decide matters of life and death, he’s going to need to put himself at some personal risk– just to prove good faith.
Your suggestion is not without merit– but would qualify as a “Bill of Attainder” under the US Constitution. (article 1, section 9) As such it’s flatly unconstitutional– our founders saw too many English abuses of it.
Instead what I might propose is that the President ask Congress to grant the judicial branch the authority to issue “capture or kill” warrants when dealing with Americans who are out of the country. Congress has this authority under Article 3 section 2.
Alternately under Article 3 section 3 the Congress itself could try and convict someone of treason. It could then order the President to “capture or kill” the individual so convicted.
None of this even remotely resemble the president acting under his own authority to murder Americans
