Summations Only

That may be pragmatic, but I agree with Straggler, that is a defeatist stance. And it will be poor comfort if a next 9/11 happens because of this action.

Defeated by the tides? Yes. Get used to it. Devote your energy to minimizing the damage.

If the military has the right to blow someone up, wherever they might be, then, surely, they also have the right to arrest that person. If not then I would suggest that we give it to them. Who doesn't?And you must mean 'surgical' like the way you would do surgery with a spoon. Yeah I was surprised to find out that it is against the law too.

Nonsense. You underestimate our incredible ability to adapt to new conditions.During the cold war when the CIA needed to dispatch someone they didn't use missiles too much did they?

Sorry but that is way beyond our capability. We cannot give the military the right to arrest anyone not already within US jurisdiction.

Didn't someone already mention Godwins rule?But yeah that is why it wasn't an issue then and it isn't an issue now.For clarity then would you say that a battlefield requires no geographic boundaries?

Only if you are a defeatist.

Yet you have no problem giving them the right to blow that person up?

That is something that is legal.But don't try to tell me what I think. Deal with YOUR position, I'll take care of my position.

This is decidedly not my position. I did serve in the military and I carried around weapons of mass destruction with the intention of using them when necessary.I haven't said, expressed, or implied, a single thing about how soldiers ought to behave.I see the smiley face in your post, but I don't see anything the least bit funny thereto attached.

And you didn’t even show a picture of Tony Blair embracing Gaddaffi.They should warn us that whether someone is officially labelled as a terrorist or a freedom fighter at any given time is largely a matter of political expedience.

Legality aside - Is it right.....?

OK. Let's follow the logic of that. Let’s consider a mirror-image situation.The Iranian government decides to label a US citizen as a terrorist. The person in question has been responsible for a number of attacks in which Iranian civilians have been killed. Whether you agree that the label of terrorist is accurate or not there can be little doubt in the sincerity of the belief that if this person continues to exist further Iranian civilian casualties will occur as a result.So the Iranian government sends in a drone. The attack is on US soil and involves the apartment block in which the intended target lives. The attack kills the intended target. It also kills a number of other people in the apartment block including some kids, a pregnant woman and an old couple. Numerous others lose limbs or are otherwise horrifically injured.When asked about the attack the Iranian government says that whilst the civilian casualties are regrettable they are a price worth paying for ending the life of the intended target whose future actions would undoubtably have resulted in more Iranian deaths. they say the action was militarily justified.Was the drone attack justified in your view? Is it, in your view, morally different from the sort of attacks being advocated as justified and necessary here?

You are pointing at the status quo. If you think the present situation is as high as the moral ground can pragmatically get I would suggest you have taken pragmatism to a level that is indistiguishable from defeatism....But aside from this rather overly-accepting approach your heart seems to be in the right place.

There is no one right or wrong answer. Each incident is unique and individual and the decision of right or wrong will depend on the threat, costs and reward in that particular incident.