Shaddows - 11:22 am on May 6, 2011 (gmt 0)
Personally, being from the UK and thus (along with our European neighbours) inhereting a less gung-ho approach to 'justice' than many Americans, I do feel uncomfortable with "some unarmed guy gets shot in the head by troops operating in a foreign country"
Imagine he was captured. How many westerners would be kidnapped and subsequently killed when their Prisoner Exchange demands were ignored?
Who would try him, under what jurisdiction? US Civil courts cannot use (IIRC) torture evidence. Discovery would surely need access to military secrets. Not going to happen.
Military court then. Anyone feel that would be more transparent than summary execution?
Military target, minimal collateral damage (better than a missile, for e.g.), clean result. On balance, I'm happy to live with the moral ambiguity of the actual operation.