Also do you think its correct to investigate very carefully anyone involved in such activities openly after the fact (once the perceived threat is no longer present) to ensure that these powers are not abused?
There was an Iain (M?) Banks book (maybe transitions?) that sort of represents my basic thoughts on this.. A policemen goes extra-judicial and tortures a suspect to find the location of a kidnapped child (or something like that).. the kid or whatever it was was saved but the policeman felt he should be criminally charged and tried after the fact and the torture should certainly not be legalised or glorified as it worked that one time in exceptional circumstances. - I think that there are times when humans do carry out a wrong to stop a greater wrong - but that should be part of the burden this actor must accept when taking action. otherwise the creative among us will not be able to stop our subconscious manipulating the laws that allow us to circumnavigate protocol.
I spend all day implementing controls in ERP systems etc. and I have to admit that when I have to raise a PO or Req you are damn right i use every fast track and workaround i know of to expedite it (I basically can't help it). So I try hard to create processes even I cannot manipulate. to be clear I think my ability to "work a process" is what makes me good at creating more robust processes - which is why I think politicians and law makers have a hard job and why we need to hold them to account.
Yes, there should be oversight before the act and scrutiny after. Yes, it should be formalized.
But I will give you that, even if you subscribe to the idea it came sometimes make some sense with extrajudicial killing, what we currently have is drone killings on a factory scale. It's disgusting.
our shock I guess is that we don't think that there is scrutiny and that these ends do not justify these means.