ExBuzzer wrote:
APKeaton wrote:

The fact he is not in an officially recognized army merely means that he is not protected by law designed to protect officially recognized armies.  He was the leader of a militant organization that explicitely proclaimed it was involved in military action against the USA.  He was a fair military target.  If he wanted a trial, he should have surrendered.  The guy was the recipient of, not only what he deserved, but a proper and legal action by the US mlitary.

But dontcha know it's a slippery slope to the target-killing of all politiclal dissenters, within and outside the U.S.? Like at the next G20 summit or something, or maybe the GOP will take out the gay pride parade or NAACP.
  
Ummm no.

When disenters stop merely dissenting and start armed conflict on a massive scale against the USA, they become combatants.  He wasn't killed because of his speech.  He was the leader of a well organized, and on many occasions succesful, organization devouted to military conflict against the USA and its allies.

The analogy of a slippery slope requires some kind of similitarity between the parties you are talking about.  Al Queda and a gay pride parade are so far apart, I don't know where to begin.


FREE THE LB4!!