re: #1 Gus

The change in how we view imminet threat is what is changing. Right now that means drones and Obama. In the near future that will be global strike, various weapons and the same legal dilemma. The possibility some strikes are war crimes under international law.

That Iraq WMD threat was legally “imminent” enough to invade. This is not just grabbing headlines. A bit more from the article

“The Justice Department’s legal arguments purportedly defending targeted killing fundamentally misconceive the nature of self-defense,” University of Notre Dame professor Mary Ellen O’Connell said in a prepared statement. “It is a right to use military force against a state that has or is about to launched a major military attack on the United States. The 9/11 attacks led to a war of self-defense in Afghanistan. That had all the hallmarks of legality. Contrast that use of force with the CIA firing of missiles from drones at a single individual and innocent bystanders in Yemen. You do not need to be an expert in international law to understand the enormous violation of law involved and the egregious conduct involved in attempting to exploit lack of knowledge of the law to achieve political cover for targeted killing.”

Do we want future Presidents wielding this authority?