If the law we followed invariably was that anyone taking illegal steps would be accountable for disobeying the law, two results would follow: (1) If the perpetrators were right about saving us from a true ticking bomb and could prove it, they would likely be acquitted, or their sentence suspended, a sort of nullification because they were demonstrably moral wrongdoers acting in an extraordinary situation. Or (2)if their self-righteous claim could not be proven to be correct, however noble their motivation, they would be guilty of violating the law and punished. They could argue self defense, good faith, whatever case they wished to make, in justification of their acts. What standards apply would be up to the presiding judge — did their acts shock the public's conscience or violate relevant statutory or international laws? The appropriate punishment would be up to judges and juries in the sentencing phase of criminal trials or the damages phase of civil trials.

Beyond that, even if they are subsequently executed, they are merely giving there life for their country and we ask idiot, 18 year-olds to do that all the time ...