> Wouldn't the actual power be with the courts who would be the people convicting anyone accused of a crime by either FBI or CIA

Now let's think about how this would work.

The CIA obtains some information on a US citizen who is suspected of a crime, using methods that would be a violation of their constitutional rights, and therefore not be admissible as evidence against them in court.

The CIA can then (a) not share the information with the FBI; (b) share it with them, but they are not allowed to use it for anything because of how it was obtained; or (c) share it with them, and then they use it via parallel construction, in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and without revealing where they actually got it, causing "public trials" to become mendacious and opaque.

But (b) and (c) are the same thing, because the only use of (b) is to let (c) happen in secret.

The CIA don’t need the the courts permission to execute anyone suspected of being a threat to the US, if said principal is outside the US ;)

I know they have a lawyer-drafted justification on file with the DOJ, but to the point of “courts permission” has that actually ever been tested in a real court (not FISA)? And if so is the decision public?

It's unlikely that a corpse files suit to protect their constitutional rights, of which no one is aware were violated in the first place.

However unlikely, it is possible. Many such cases where the estate of the dead or their families have brought suit against the US government.

Example: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-yemen/u-s-appeals-...

You do realize the article you just linked starts with "threw out a lawsuit by the families"

Obviously. My original question was whether the justification for extrajudicial killings has yet been tested by a court, as claimed

And if in the US and a beneficiary of the paperclip operation whose downsides outweigh benefits, Cia-trained Mossad agents were available.

Hence why they are loved across the world :)

The CIA operates outside the law by design. They just need to say they're doing it for "national security reasons". There are laws that attempted to curtail these powers, but it has never done anything other than creating additional paperwork.

The office of the president maintains the right to order execution of anyone without trial, so there is no need for courts.

When I saw they comment I had a similar thought. Of course the separation of powers is about balance between the branches of government, and the CIA and FBI are both in the same branch.

But having them separate allows the Administrative branch to operate in a way that hypothetically shouldn’t step on the toes of the judicial. (Well, that is the hope at least).