Originally Posted by Botnst

Those are very good points. Obviously I have not thought it through.

I think uniformed soldiers are protected by the Geneva Conventions. So if captured I suspect he would be held as a lawful enemy combatant, but I don't know. That's an interesting question.

If in enemy uniform then he's a fair target. A uniform identifies combatant status. I believe that in the past a captured American in enemy uniform was subject to constitutional trial as a spy. Not sure.

I guess my major beef is the concept of targeted killing. I do not understand why there is some distinction between assassination and targeted killing. I can't put my finger on why it makes me uncomfortable. From a logical POV we might say that targeting enemy gov officials would subject our own to similar targeting.

Finally, I have a problem with killing citizens without due process of law. I have no problem mowing-down foreign combatants. I want a higher standard for our own citizens. Else, what's to stop some president from okaying the killing of a political opponent as a threat to state security?