More on Osama

After four days, we have some facts.  Kudos to our government for fessing up.

There was llittle resistance.  The woman was killed along with the AQ messenger before entry to Osama's house.   There was no resistance by Bin Laden of his son. 
 
This was an assassination by a Seal hit team from the outset.

Apart from theoretical matters of legality and morality, it's hard to second-guess that decision.  After all these years, we still don't know what to do with Khalil Sheikh Mohammed.  We sure don't need a breathing and untried Osama & Son in perpetual confinement at Guantanamo like some "man in the iron mask" ordered imprisoned without trial by a French king while we hold off Amnesty, Int'l visits by bayonet.

Simpler and cleaner with lower risk of future terrorism to just kill them.

Does it bother me?  Sure it does.  Those polls like to ask "Do you think America has lost its way?"   Well, yes;  sure.  Partly if not mostly for the way out leaders have bent the laws.

We are not as far from an extra-constitutional dictatorship as we would wish.  Here is proof that ours is not a government of laws but of men and expediency.

We were told that captured terrorists, terrorist-affiliates and suspects were soldiers and not criminals, that our domestic laws did not apply to them, and so they were carted off to a legal no-where at Gitmo, where an extra-constitutional system was set up to supposedly try them, when and if we got around to it, maybe.

But is it okay to assassinate unarmed soldiers? That's what happened this week in Pakistan.

Truth is, we have done this before, in WWII and since. We did it in conflict with American Indians. And it is a legal and moral dilemma only if we think about it. Most Americans are not thinking about it. We never have much.  The price of gasoline is forever on our minds more than morals.