What is the acceptable means, then?
No one is saying that if another attack were to happen, or be in progress that the United States couldn't act, even if it included US innocent citizens. However, the scenario we are talking about here is about US citizens that the President, or his cabinet (including the CIA) deems "imminent threats" on US soil....That's dangerous...The SPLC calls the Tea Party a hate group, and clearly uses the "terrorist" label loosely. Do you see that giving the president to summarily execute US citizens, could feasibly turn into a President taking out his political enemies?
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
The War Powers Act was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the President, very much like the infamous enabling act and similar acts by the Venezuelan legislature more recently. Never has this nation gotten so close to tyranny as under FDR and Wilson. I don't know of any examples where the War Powers Act has been evoked to justify military action since WWII.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt by Congress to limit the President's authority to conduct war. It was unconstitutional, and Presidents have generally ignored it.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
I don't see the statement as an admission so much as a scoffing at the terminally paranoid for fretting that they ever wanted to.
I love the smell of face-palm in the morning!
"You ain't no Muslim bruv!"