For a guy who gets it right on so many domestic spending issues he couldn’t be more wrong when it comes to foreign policy.

(Briefing Room) — Likely GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said this week he would not have authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, raising concerns about international law.

Paul, a congressman from Texas with a libertarian bent, said that he would have rather worked with the Pakistani government to track down the al Qaeda leader responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

When asked by Iowa radio station WHO if he would have ordered the mission, in which U.S. forces raided bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, Paul said “Not the way it took place, no.”

Paul has said he is happy that bin Laden is dead, but has expressed skepticism about whether it has made the U.S. safer and has used it to push for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

The likely candidate indicated that to capture bin Laden, he would have worked with Pakistan on a mission like the one that nabbed with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was captured by Pakistani intelligence forces and transferred into U.S. custody.

“What’s wrong with that? Why can’t they work with the government?” Paul asked.

The Obama administration and lawmakers in both parties, however, have raised questions about Pakistan as an ally in fighting terrorism considering they did not get to bin Laden despite the proximity of his compound to military installations and the nation’s capital of Islamabad.

Paul said that international law was an overriding concern.