https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/andrew-p-napolitano/a-lawless-political-assassination/

A Lawless Political Assassination
By Andrew P. Napolitano
January 9, 2020

“America … goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” — President John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)

Last week, President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade a then-friendly country without the knowledge or consent of its government and αssαssιnαtҽ a visiting foreign government official. The victim was the head of Iran’s military and intelligence. The formerly friendly country is Iraq. The killing of the general and his companions was carried out by the use of an unmanned drone. The general was not engaged in an act of violence at the time he was killed, nor were any of his companions. They were driving on a public highway in a van.

The president’s supporters have argued that the general’s death was revenge for Americans and others killed by the general’s troops and surrogates. Trump has argued, more importantly, that he ordered the general’s death because of what evil the general might order his own troops and surrogates to do in the future.

Can the president legally kill a person not engaged in an act of violence because of what the person might do in the future? In a word: No.
Here is the backstory.

The president has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides only two means for the federal government to kill a human being. The first is pursuant to a declaration of war, which only Congress can do. That permits the president to use the military to kill the troops of the government of the country against which war has been declared. Congress has not declared war on Iran.

The second way that the Constitution permits federal government killings is pursuant to due process. That means that the person to be killed is lawfully in custody, has been properly charged, lawfully tried and fairly convicted of a capital crime, and the conviction has been upheld on appeal.

Can the president kill foreign military personnel and claim the justification of self-defense? The laws of war permit him to do that, but self-defense — actually, defense of the country — only comes into play when the foreign military personnel are physically engaged in killing Americans or are certainly about to do so. That justification only applies — the law here is 600 years old and has been consistently applied — when force is imminent and certain.
Were imminence and certainty not the requirement, then nothing would prevent a president from slaying any monster he chose simply based on a fear that the monster might someday strike. Such a state of affairs is contrary to two presidential executive orders, one issued by President Gerald R. Ford and the other by President Ronald Reagan, and neither negated by Trump. Such a territorial invasion and killing also violate the United Nations Charter — a treaty that prohibits unlawful invasions and killings of member nations’ territories and officials outside of a lawful and U.N. approved declaration of war.

Roaming the world looking for monsters to slay not only violates long-standing principles of American domestic and international law, but also it violates basic ʝʊdɛօ-Christian moral principles, which teach that the end does not justify the means and might does not make right.

Think about it. If the American president can kill an Iranian government official in Iraq because of fear of what he might do — without a declaration of war or any legal process — can the Chinese president kill a Mexican government official visiting in Texas or an American intelligence agent encouraging revolution in Venezuela for fear of what they might do?

This is not a fanciful or academic argument. It not only goes to the fidelity to the rule of law that we require of our leaders in order to maintain personal liberty and limited government, it also goes to our safety. We have laws to prevent wanton killings, lest killers turn on us.

In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More argues with his son-in-law, William Roper, about the extent of the law’s protections of those universally recognized as evil. Roper says that he would cut down all the laws in England to get rid of the Devil.

More counters that even the Devil is entitled to the benefits of the law. Then he hurls this zinger: “And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you?—?where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast?—?man’s laws, not God’s?—?and, if you cut them down?—?and you’re just the man to do it?—?d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

More crystalized the dangers of those who — like Trump — take the law into their own hands for the sake of expedience or to rid the world of a monster. Without law, how does one decide what monsters should go and what monsters may stay?

When President Obama used drones to kill peaceful uncharged Americans in Yemen, candidate Donald Trump condemned that behavior. He offered that as president, he would bring the troops home, stop the nation building, quit being the world’s police force and end the endless wars. Instead, his act of state terrorism has succeeded in doing what the general he killed could never do while alive. Trump has united the Iranian people behind their fanatical government, and he caused the Iraqi government to kick out all American troops — troops that had no lawful or moral basis for being there in the first place and whose numbers have only increased.

Trump cut down the laws to get to the Devil. Whom will he kill next?

Trump so far has had no true impeachable offenses, until this.

He said that intel knew that the general was about to strike the US, as such, I don't see that as an impeachable offense at all, I see that as him doing his duty.  

And yet they apparently could not provide one iota of hard evidence to sustain this allegation.  If our trustworthy intel that never  lies to us had such evidence why was it not shared with the American public -- at least after the assassination?  If they were following the usual script it would have been for reasons of national security don't you know.

And yet they apparently could not provide one iota of hard evidence to sustain this allegation.

Do you have any understanding of how intelligence agencies work?  It's very likely that the classified information used to kill that guy is also relative to other people/situations.  That's why it's not been "proven" or "released" (and don't hold your breath waiting).  The intelligence community doesn't work for "we the people"; it's been this way for 70+ years.  Get over it.

Naturally I am going with the assumption that Trump's not lying, but in reality I highly doubt that any of us will ever know the whole truth....which is why articles like in the OP will be numerous. Conspiracy theories have always been popular.

Naturally, I am going to wonder why you ASSUME that Trump was not lying.  On the other hand, it's just as possible he thought he was telling the truth because he assumed our 100% honest   intel agencies  were telling him the truth but I kind of doubt someone like Trump would have assumed that.
 And yes, of course, it's possible that he told the truth because he passed on the truth that he got.

Questioning the official narrative should be a lot more popular, but fat chance with a largely insouciant American public.

To clarify, Trump bunched the three killings together in one of his speeches to the nation yesterday.

And yes, of course, it's possible that he told the truth because he passed on the truth that he got.

Questioning the official narrative should be a lot more popular, but fat chance with a largely insouciant American public.

I'm all for "questioning the narrative" but which one should we question?  The media corps LIE; the intel communities LIE; the politicians LIE.  So how do we even know what happened?
.
My only point is that you are all riled up about the Presidents/intel's story (i.e. potential lie #1) vs the media's article (i.e. not-potential, but actual lie #2).  It's like you're arguing over who is worse - Judas, Martin Luther or Hitler.  Does it really matter?  You'll never have all the facts; you'll never know the multiple agendas in all of this (from middle east oil $, to Iraq drug money, to Trump's re-election campaign, to corps selling newspapers, to Peℓσѕι's hate of Trump, to Congressmen critiquing the President for "air time" and popularity, to legitimately hurting ISIS, to legitimately helping protect bases in Iraq, etc, etc).  There's about a HUNDRED different angles to this situation and we'll never know enough to make sense of it.  So calm down and quit attacking your fellow men for being confused and clinging to the "most positive" mental story (I.e. that a very small few in govt might still care to protect us), even if most us know that even this small hope is b.s.  Sometimes, in the midst of war (and we're in the middle of an information war, which has lasted decades), you have to cling to positive thoughts, however unrealistic.  You have to stay sane.  What's the alternative?  What does ranting and raving solve, when a solution is impossible?  

Trump so far has had no true impeachable offenses, until this.

Indeed, this is crying out for impeachment, the very type of scenario the Founding Fathers envisioned when drawing up the impeachment process.  That is also why the Constitution has always required Congressional approval before going to war.  They have skirted this by redefining these as NOT being war, but just isolated military actions.  But that intent of the Constitution is precisely to prevent a rogue President from committing the entire country to war on a whim and endangering the country.

Being the conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't doubt if the entire impeachment circus regarding total stupidity wasn't orchestrated in order to provide cover for Trump for a later impeachment for this kind of behavior.