I would have killed him with a corkscrew.

Over several hours.

and kill thousands of people to get bin Ladin. He sent in a team of highly trained Navy Seals and they got the job done. He did not send a drone and kill innocent people who just happened to be near by.

It's better the last thing they hear is the buzzing of a drone than the screams of an American soldier getting maimed or killed in the firefight.

He deserved to look in the eyes of his executioner and know his death was coming.

If your question is about drones, that's what you should ask about.

It's helpful to consider the most recent high profile assassination the United States Government performed.

Bryant

international terrorist' some validation for actions that kill by remote control those whose names we are not told who are certainly not the most wanted man on Earth including American citizens? Again, what's the similarity, what is the actual connection? The targets are not similar, the pursuit not as extended nor exhaustive, the tactics and weapons (which are the central part of your actual point) are not the same in at all.
Seems you are going a long way to not ask the question you actually have in mind.

I have grave reservations about this kill list.

I do question the line "pursuit not as extended nor exhaustive" - since we don't know the subjects, we can't know whether or not these targets merit assassination. It's possible they do.

Is it appropriate to use drones to kill innocent American civilians?
Is it appropriate to use drones to kill guilty as hell American terrorists?

I must admit this was sparked a bit by that list of ethical flaws someone posted - I'll go get the link in a moment (here it is)- but several of those ethical flaws could also be applied to killing Bin Ladin.

Bryant

Yes, the difference is method. Special OPs vs. Drones. But the process in which they got there is exactly what those opposed to drone strikes have been talking about for several days -- a unilateral decision by one man to whack a citizen of another country.

Congress wasn't consulted. There were no committee meetings on the hill. They just did it. Like they're doing with the drones.

Full disclosure: I happen to agree with the targeting of Bin Laden (it took a Dem to get it right) and I'm also unopposed to the use of drones.

I had to point this out in another thread about drones and Osama Bin Laden, geesh.

But I'm not sure how many here are fine with killing people with drones so long as they aren't Us Citizens.

Bryant

with seemly impunity? Just because their a name on someones list. Does no one see the connection between what we are doing there and the continuing terrorism?
The very fact that WE are in their country killing them, will cause any still non-terrost to fight back any way they can. Give them time.
The blow back for the animosity we are currently generating in the Middle East will be very unpleasant.

if say someone in iraq wanted to retaliate the unnecessary bloodshed from a war we waged for no reason at all towards one of our leaders, i wonder how many of us would think that is justifiable

use my computer to google map them.

I would probably let them borrow my car.

Will never shed a tear for that fucker.

Many of the same issues around the drone strikes do apply here, of course.

Asymmetric warfare is neither more nor less morally complex than "traditional" combat. Moral ambiguities (to say the least) will always accompany any enterprise that is centered around killing people. For examples, look at the Blitz, Dresden, or the Albigensian Crusade.

without their knowledge or support.

On the other hand there would have been little hope of transporting and putting on trial the self righteous piece of garbage that was OBL.

If someone in the government decided to put el_bryanto on a kill list, should they be able to vaporize him, his family, and possibly his neighbors without providing due process?

As I am a totally innocent guy and very likable.

Should Drones be able to be used to kill totally innocent guys like me? No.
Should Drones be able to be used to kill totally guilty guys like bin Ladin? Yes. No. Not without some review. Maybe.

Bryant

I believe in due process for everyone.

super problematic by the way - seems to nod towards exigent circumstances. The Target apparently has to pose an immediate threat of violent attack against the United States.

I guess the problem is who determines when an individual meets those circumstances.

Bryant

The fucker needed to be dead.

However, the US almost always kills their partners in crime. Like the mafia.

The others they imprison without the ability to expose theirs and our secrets.