I would think the existence of evidence would make one seem like a reasonable course of action, while the other is basically up to the whims of the officials involved and word-of-mouth more than anything. I have to assume there's some evidence out there to support them putting this dude on a hit-list; if there's not then they have no reason to target him, and should be taken to task for it. I'm not saying I think the dude deserves to be killed, but rather if the evidence is out there which unquestionably paints him as a dangerous extremist who can do damage to his "fellow citizens", then snuffing him out isn't the worst thing in the world. It's a difference between one being a known criminal with influence and the ability to hurt us, while the other is arrested and, perhaps, tortured simply because one of his neighbors pointed a finger at him.