The "Impossibility" of Capture in Today's New York Times Editorial?

Without wanting to shoehorn my way into Ben's invaluable service in keeping the country safe from errors in New York Times editorials, I too wanted to raise something about today's editorial, "Repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force."  Midway through, the editorial says (emphasis added):

On one hand, the administration has said it would use lethal force only when capturing a terrorist was impossible, and it did arrest Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden who once served as a spokesman for Al Qaeda, and arraigned him on Friday in federal court in Manhattan.

Only when "impossible"?  Has the administration actually said that? Although it is certainly possible that officials in the Obama administration have said that the policy is that lethal force would be used only when capture is "impossible," offhand I am unaware of anyone in the administration actually saying it, whether using that specific terminology or suggesting that the administration's policy involves so stringent a requirement. (Note that this simply a question of policy either way, not a point of law; additionally, the Times' assertion was not limited to US citizens as targets.)  I've done a quick search and do not find it used by administration officials; if anyone is able to point me to instances of it, I would be grateful to find out and will link here.  So far as I can tell, however, it arises not in statements by government officials, but instead by journalists such as Jane Mayer, writing in, for example, the February 15, 2013 New Yorker.  Targeted killing, she writes (apparently paraphrasing the views of moral philosophers whom she interviewed), is "only justifiable when lesser uses of force, such as capture, are impossible." The term used in the leading national security law speeches of the administration, however, is not "impossible," but instead "not feasible" or some similar language.  Unfeasibility, of course, is a very different policy standard from "impossibility" of capture.  Though it's possible some senior official has spoken of impossibility of capture as the standard for policy, I would be surprised and would say it is quite at odds with the policy standard that the administration has used in its speeches. As to the law, if these are lawful targets under the law of war, then there is no obligation even to evaluate the possibility of capture over kill as a condition of lawful attack (let alone its impossibility), just as there is no obligation to warn or offer surrender.  (If the target is a US citizen, there might be some further domestic law consideration - the administration has said there is some form of due process rights in, for example, Eric Holder's Northwestern speech - but it remains not-beyond-controversy as to whether such rights attach to combatants in war who happen to be citizens and, even if some domestic law consideration such as due process does in fact apply, as Holder has said, its contours either generally or in any particular circumstance. But the Times' assertion is not limited to US citizens.) In any case, the Times' "impossible" and the administration's "not feasible" are not the same thing.  Should we care, apart from pedantry? I think we should, but I'll explain why in a further post about feasibility and capture from an operational standpoint.  First, though, I'd like a double-check from readers on whether the administration has used "impossible" language regarding capture over kill in any significant or policy-setting statements.  If so, please send me a link and I'll update this post. (Updated:  Alert Reader Stephanie Blum notes in an email that the Times urged this very policy upon the Obama administration in an editorial only a few weeks ago, on February 7, 2013.  "Killing should be authorized," editorialized the Times, "only when it can be demonstrated that capture is impossible."  So.  From "should" be the policy to "is" the policy in four short weeks; managing to confuse, as Blum adds, their "own wishful thinking with what the government" has actually said.)