There really is no defense of the extra-judicial killings. There just isn't.

[cali]

48. I'm sorry but you are just wrong. Have you read the entire memorandum?

It is frighteningly vague. Seriously, don't you think that oversight of some kind would be preferable to no oversight at all?

Here are a couple of good articles:

What Would the Godfather Say

<snip>

Laws that govern the use of lethal force come from several sources, but they typically emphasize similar terms, such as necessity, proportionality and imminence. Additionally, the Constitution promises that citizens will not be deprived of life without due process of law.

The more we learn about the Obama administration’s internal justifications for its targeted killing program, the more obvious it is that words like “imminence” or “due process” can and will be stretched beyond normal usage to accommodate whatever uses of force the president chooses. For example, the Justice Department memo appears to suggest that if an executive official “cannot be confident” that a suspected terrorist is not about to attack, the requirement of an “imminent” threat may be satisfied. And while due process had previously been interpreted to require judicial hearings and other mechanisms to address the risk of government error, the Justice Department’s discussion subordinates concerns about erroneous killing with a vague invocation of “the realities of combat.” In other words, in this memo uncertainty is grounds for violence rather than a reason for deliberation or caution. At worst, this memo evinces the same embrace of executive power that characterized the infamous Bush administration “torture memos.” At best, it reveals a different kind of naiveté – a view of a world in which the great responsibilities of a president necessitate unlimited discretion to do violence.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/05/what-standards-must-be-met-for-the-us-to-kill-an-american-citizen/the-justice-department-thinks-uncertainty-is-grounds-for-violence

One of the most important questions here — perhaps the most important — is not what the legal standard is but who ultimately decides whether the standard is satisfied in any given case. Who decides that a particular person presents a threat sufficient to justify the government’s summarily killing him? The Justice Department contends that the Constitution permits this decision to be entrusted to an “informed high-level official” — with no judicial review before the killing or even after. This is wrong and dangerous.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/05/what-standards-must-be-met-for-the-us-to-kill-an-american-citizen/the-problem-with-relying-on-officials-in-targeting-the-enemy