This quote underscores a longstanding perspective on military engagement and the moral considerations surrounding targeted lethal force. It emphasizes that the legitimacy of using deadly force is fundamentally rooted in its adherence to established legal frameworks, particularly those authorized by Congress in the context of armed conflict. Historically, armies have been tasked with the objective of neutralizing threats through capture or destruction, a practice that has persisted for millennia and is embedded within the very nature of warfare. The argument suggests that when military actions conform to recognized legal standards, especially in the context of wartime authorization, their controversial nature diminishes. This serves as a reminder that legality provides a crucial boundary that differentiates lawful military operations from unlawful acts. However, it also invites contemplation on issues such as the ethical implications of lethal force, the precision and constraints of targeted operations, and the importance of accountability. While legality may legitimize certain actions in the eyes of the state and military tradition, it does not solely determine moral correctness. The balance between military necessity and ethical considerations remains delicate and complex, especially in an era of advanced technology and evolving warfare strategies. Ultimately, the quote advocates for a framework where targeted killing is justified not merely by strategic needs but also by conforming to solemn legal principles, reinforcing that such actions, when properly authorized, are less likely to be deemed controversial or unjustifiable.