The key word you used here is "probably". No-one will ever know because he was vaporized before anyone got a chance to assess the situation. This is why we have trials.
The key word he used is, that allmost everyday people get vaporized by US drones, who are clearly innocent but are just foreigners and so the outcry happens when a US citizen got hit, who probably was one of the bad guys.
He criticizes the unbalance and did not said, that also that guy deserved a trial.
But on the other hand, there is a war going on. And in a war you can't really held a trial for every person you shoot while in a COMBAT .. but if you have a death lists of people you are planning to kill, then yes, if you claim to base your actions on human rights and freedom etc. you should prove that those persons actually are the enemy.
Otherwise the step into dictatorship with deathsquads will be only a matter of time, if the best way of problem solving is secretly killing people the government claims to be bad.
But on the other hand, there is a war going on. And in a war you can't really held a trial for every person you shoot while in a COMBAT .. but if you have a death lists of people you are planning to kill, then yes, if you claim to base your actions on human rights and freedom etc. you should prove that those persons actually are the enemy. Otherwise the step into dictatorship with deathsquads will be only a matter of time, if the best way of problem solving is secretly killing people the government claims to be bad.