Quote

In my view, targeted lethal force is at its least controversial when it is on its strongest, most traditional legal foundation. The essential mission of the U.S. military is to capture or kill an enemy. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years. As part of a congressionally authorized armed conflict, the foundation is even stronger.

Murder is an offensive act. The term cannot be applied legitimately to any defensive act.

Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen - even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaida in a foreign land - is among the gravest that government leaders can face.

People say you favor assassination, what do you think war is? Except that it's assassination on a much larger scale, a much more horrific scale.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: No matter how sharp a grievance or how deep a hurt, there is no justification for killing innocents.

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody.

A bullet can kill the enemy, but a bullet can also produce an enemy, depending on whom that bullet strikes.

The purpose of armed struggle is not simply to kill... its purpose is to reach a political goal.

There are many thousands of books on particular assassinations and on the subject in general, but nearly all of them deal with the victims, not the perpetrators.