IIRC, the ban was an executive order, and applied as a bright line prohibition on US action against officials of foreign governments. I’ll do some digging to see which president instituted it.
Does anyone wonder what “The One” would say should a foreign entity declare the right to do the same with heads of state, say, here?
The legal theory behind drone strikes of US Citizens in the war on terror, probably cites the mid 19th century handling of the US Civil war.
Is this about Chris Dorner? Or is something else stuck in your craw?
Generally, that the target is a non-state actor and that killing the target is not a law-enforcement function, rather, it is state security.
Those lines are intentionally made blurry.
"I will MAKE it legal..."
If I’m baiting the arguments accurately, it was a unilateral executive thing, and only applied to officials of legitimate foreign governments. Which makes sense. Kill all the innocent civilians you want, but start killing the ones who actually start wars and they might come after you.
If you are not at war with them, its illegal to assassinate a leader.
If you are at war, its called attacking command and control. Its the first thing you do, if you can.
or doesn’t anyone care?
Well some do care its just that its not that many that do..
Else; Barry Half-White would not be President..
He’s as white as he is black.. you know..
But he was raised by white commies which morphed into black commies as time went on..
Daily less and less people actually CARE!... its getting worse not better..
America is becoming like a chimpanzee troup.. very primitive..
All RAP and posturing.. grunting noises and arm folding..
America is being dumbed down.. logic is despised...
The legal justification is that we are at war with Al Qaeda and its allies, so we are justified in killing its leaders. The problem is Obama says he is not continuing Bush’s global war on terror and claims we are not at war. So, he had DOJ issue a paper setting out a rationale that really makes no sense.