David Sirota asks some awkward and inconvenient questions:

Bin Laden Mission Evokes More Questions Than Answers

If the mission to neutralize Osama bin Laden were a blockbuster movie, the screen would have almost certainly faded to black as soon as the accused terrorist’s death was announced. No doubt, the credits would roll to Queen’s “We Will Rock You” and then a big “The End” would appear.

Alas, real life is not one of Hollywood’s many Pentagon-sponsored flicks—and as hard as President Obama tried to portray last week’s events as proof “that America can do whatever we set our mind to,” the mission and its cloudy aftermath have raised troubling questions about the “whatever” part. Among the most important of those queries are:

—Is it legal for a president to issue extrajudicial “kill only” orders—that is, orders to kill but not capture a suspect, even if that suspect surrenders? United Nations investigators are now asking this very question after Reuters cited an Obama administration official in reporting that U.S. troops were “under orders to kill (bin Laden), not capture him.”

. . . .

—Who is the president now prohibited from executing sans due process? At first glance, the answer might seem to be “anyone not named Osama bin Laden.” Except, days after the bin Laden mission, Obama ordered the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, even though Awlaki hasn’t been charged with—much less convicted of—a crime. If this is now acceptable, whom else can the president order killed without judicial review?

. . . .

Full article at link:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/7302/bin_laden_mission_evokes_more_questions_than_answers/

these ever-expanding executive powers and never abuse them.

because it is as Democrat, are not remembering in the same way Republicans forgot, that these powers will one day be in the hands of a Republican. What will they be saying then when that Republican orders assassinations they do not approve of?

It's amazing how quickly people will give up their rights, and for what reasons.

if the helicopter had not crashed.

Still, he'd have been a nightmare to hold. Anyone who was suspected of being American or European would have been targeted for kidnapping to gain his release.

In any case, Pakistan had approved the whole thing in theory, although they weren't notified that it was being put into practice.

I think the howls over the "illegal" killing neglect the fact of what a threat that man was, something that would appear to be confirmed by the material seized from his compound. Everything the Bush gang told us about him was a lie.

My sympathy goes to his wives and children. Their lives were difficult then and will likely be made much more difficult now.

orders were to "kill, not capture" OBL.

What struck me (and the reason I posted it) was not that this article was saying anything new -- it wasn't and DU had already thoroughly covered each point Sirota raises. What struck me is that Sirota is not as easily dismissed as someone who needs his "head examined" (Obama's advice on CBS' "60 Minutes" last Sunday to those of us who dare to have questions).

When commentators like Sirota start asking these questions, the questions have entered the mainstream.

and I admit I'm just guessing. However, the rest of my post about what a nightmare he'd have been to hold as a prisoner still stands.

I agree that holding OBL as a prisoner would have posed challenges to the justice system. However, I also believe a 'trial' in public of OBL might have gone a long way to de-mystifying his appeal.

The point is, we will never know.

I predict that the cycle of violence will continue and probably worsen now.

Interesting article

Despite all the strident declarations that the SEALs did the right thing, the reality remains that there's nothing heroic about killing an unarmed man. If we're going to reclaim our national "honor" after the September 11th attacks, we won't do it by matching a sneaky hit with another sneaky hit.

Celebrating American stealth isn't much of a message going forward. This country used to admire boldness and principle; but now we'll settle for getting away with shit. Compare the commitment of early patriots to their sacred honor with today's facile apologies, It was dark and they couldn't see what they were doing.

Incidentally, Sirota's essay appears elsewhere with a different title, "Has America Become a Nation of Cowards?" See http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/13-10

that precedent.

sickening.

This will bite the USA on the ass --in a big way.

Matching a sneaky hit with another sneaky hit has a certain symmetry, I'll grant you that. But I wish we'd have refused to sink to the level of a terrorist gang in order to get even. Well, we got even, didn't we? We're as sneaky as Al Qaeda. Big deal.

USA! USA! Good Lord, we're hard up for something to cheer about.

Most American's gave up on Freedom and Justice soon after the 9/11 attacks.