A former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay has confused and alarmed Twitter users with a hypothetical question: If there's no collateral damage, can the U.S. government legally blast a 7.62 mm hole in the forehead of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange?

The query came from an unlikely source: the account of retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, chief prosecutor from 2005 to 2007 for the military commissions set up to try suspected terrorists held at the U.S. detention center in Cuba.

Though he has been critical of Assange and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on Twitter, Davis also is well-respected by civil libertarians and some doubted that he actually sent the tweet.

A prominent Guantanamo Bay defense attorney contacted for thoughts suggested not reporting on the tweets before speaking with Davis, as "this could be a hack." Another attorney for long-held inmates said he assumed the message was sarcastic.

As the chief prosecutor of Guantanamo detainees, Davis attempted to ban use of evidence acquired through methods that critics call torture before resigning when an official who had a hand in the approval of such techniques became his superior. He won a $100,000 settlement in May from the Library of Congress, which fired him in 2009 after he wrote a a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing the Obama administration for considering traditional trials for some but not all Guantanamo suspects.

Davis, now an administrative law judge at the Department of Labor, tells U.S. News he actually sent the tweets, and that he feels Twitter's 140-character limit led some people to misunderstand his intent.

Drone strike was a bad hypo. Substitute a 7.62 round on Assange's forehead instead. Would Art. 51 permit it assuming no collateral damage? pic.twitter.com/kB4fehDHmq — Col. Morris Davis (@ColMorrisDavis) October 17, 2016

"I'm getting beaten up by people who haven't taken five minutes to Google me and see what my positions have been," Davis says.

The shocked and angry messages did pour in as the hypothetical made its rounds.

"That is some vile sh--! No doubt U enjoyed Ur time rectal feeding people at Gitmo," one person tweeted.

"Exactly! As you know, I resigned because I didn't think we used enough torture," Davis joked in response.

The premise of Davis' question was that cyberattacks could be considered acts of war, and Article 51 of the U.N. charter says nations can defend themselves. The Obama administration earlier this month accused Russia's government of hacking into computer systems to influence the 2016 election, while John Podesta, the chairman of Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, also has blamed Russian hackers for an apparent breach of his emails. Such messages have then been published online by entities including WikiLeaks.

U.S. government authorities have been banned from participating in political assassinations by executive order since the 1970s, but the CIA has since 9/11 carried out a robust program of drone strikes that kill members of various armed jihadi groups.

"I think 20 years ago it would have been unimaginable, but of course 20 years ago torture and drone strikes and targeted assassinations would have been unimaginable," Davis says.

"We've taken some really expansive views since 9/11 about what the law permits us to do, with torture and drone strikes and killing U.S. citizens – that's what caused me to pose the question: Could you construct an argument there's a legal basis?" he says. "I guarantee you there's an attorney somewhere in government, there's another John Yoo somewhere, who would potentially craft an argument about why under international humanitarian law there is a basis."

Davis initially tweeted on Sunday: "Since Ecuador gives safe haven to a clear & present danger to American democracy (Assange) does US have an Art. 51 right to drone strike?"

Shortly after, he tweeted a photo of Assange and said: "Drone strike was a bad hypo. Substitute a 7.62 round on Assange's forehead instead. Would Art. 51 permit it assuming no collateral damage?"

Davis testified for the defense at the trial of WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning that leaked documents about Guantanamo contained little non-public information, and last week he sent a letter to the White House recommending Manning be given clemency. He says until recently he felt ambivalent about Assange, but that he strongly disapproves of the publisher's strategic release of documents damaging to Clinton.

Assange is a frequent critic of Clinton, particularly of her foreign policy.