Killing Heads of State

In the days when kings led their troops into battle they were a perfectly legitimate target for the enemy. When kings ceased to play a part in battle their generals remained legitimate targets. In our history the most famous 'general' was Nelson, specifically and successfully targeted by French snipers but fortunately for us too late to alter the course of the battle.  If Gaddafi were an elected head of state of a civilian government then I can understand that to target him would be wrong as in effect one would have to authorise an assassination squad to kill him. If though he were killed in an attack not directly targeted against him but at say a military target in Tripoli he would merely be a casualty of war. Thus in my view such a death would not be immoral. However as Gaddafi is engaged in a generalship role in directing his troops against the rebels he must be a legitimate target in the same way as any soldier in an army. There is no moral outrage when snipers are ordered to target specific enemy soldiers so what is the difference between that kind of target and Gaddafi whilst Gaddafi is acting in a generalship role? General Sir David Richards (in effect supported by the Americans) says that targeting Gaddafi is not allowed under the UN resolution although the government do not seem to have ruled it out. If Sir David is right it is a pity. No quarter should be given to the murderous Gaddafi.