united-states international
Is targeted killing legal?
<p>I have read on wikipedia that for every adult the (U.S) targets on average 9 children gets killed, Trump ordered a strike on Iranian Military Leader in Baghdad. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>is targeted killing legal or atleast in this case? </p></li>
<li><p>can those who perform these operations be arrested and prosecuted? </p></li>
<li><p>can a new war begin between the two countries? </p></li>
</ul>

<p>(<a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/leader-of-iranian-revolutionary-guard-s-foreign-wing-killed-11578015855" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/leader-of-iranian-revolutionary-guard-s-foreign-wing-killed-11578015855</a>) </p>

<p>Whether or not a war between political entities can result from some action is completely political and strategic, and not legal. The specific incident is probably legal, given US and international law regarding military action. Unless the order was self-evidently unlawful there is no possibility of arrest and prosecution under US law, however there might be a framework for legal action by Iran, if e.g. a drone operator were to fall into Iranian hands. The specifics of the order are not generally known, though we know that <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DoD states</a> that this was due to a presidential order. <a href="https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2015/01/Vol-1_Blum-Heymann_Final.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> discusses targeted killing from a legal perspective. In the context of war, killing is legal though not entirely unregulated. </p>

<p>There was a failed attempt to sue the US  in the case <a href="https://casetext.com/case/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta</a>, which involved a targeted killing of a US citizen involved in planning terrorist attacks, a suit which was dismissed. One problem is that the suit "failed to state a 4th Amendment claim", and also failed to state a 5th Amendment due process claim since Al–Aulaqi's deaths was unanticipated. The court notes that a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bivens claim</a> allows damage action against a federal officer for violation of clearly-established constitutional rights. However, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>No case has discussed precisely whether a plaintiff can proceed on a
  Bivens action that claims deprivation of life without due process
  based on the overseas killing by United States officials of a U.S.
  citizen deemed to be an active enemy.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the discussion, the question arises whether special circumstances counsel hesitation (<a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3DA05C9A3814B28C85257A1E004D6D69/$file/11-5209-1378889.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Doe v. Rumsfeld</a> and citations therein), which the Doe court notes would "require a court to delve into the military's policies", and they will not do that lightly. All of this is about US citizens. Soleimani was not a US citizen.</p>
