Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

Holder says Osama bin Laden shooting was 'justified'

By James Oliphant
May 4, 2011, 3:01 p.m.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a Senate committee Wednesday that the shooting of Osama bin Laden was “justified as an act of national self-defense.”

Responding to questions from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder said the killing of the Al Qaeda leader, who according to U.S. officials was unarmed, was “lawful.”

“He was the head of Al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th. He admitted his involvement,” Holder said. “It’s lawful to target an enemy commander in the field.”

[...]

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-holder-bin-laden-20110504,0,6699621.story [with comments]

---

and I agree -- bin Laden is a very particular case, not just some foot-soldier captured in an ambush -- I'd go so far as to say that we were under no obligation to accept his surrender, that in his case we were fully entitled to just kill him (and make him utterly disappear) if/when we found him if we felt that was best for us all things considered (including by virtue of the message thus sent) -- behind multiple attacks in multiple coountries and proudly self-proclaimedly so, ever advocating more; in this instance, no actual injustice in no trial -- we didn't go there in person instead of just blowing him to bits in order to give him a chance to surrender, we did that in order first, to make sure we got him, and second, to get all that other good stuff, the computers, hard drives, thumb drives, disks, files, etc. -- and once we were there and knew we had both him and all that other good stuff (apparently quite a lot of it), any net added value to us of keeping him alive shrank, quickly, a lot -- . . .

the questions and considerations you raise are real and legitimate, of course -- but this ain't the case where any of them are of primary relevance or are going to control -- bin Laden had made his own sleeping place and irrevocably and forever waived any right or entitlement to claim any protection by virtue of any such considerations -- and Pakistan's sovereignty, again in this case? -- sorry, nah, not hardly, any valid such objection waived (including in particular by the evident direct complicity at some level or other) -- any country that has this guy camped out free, comfy and still active on its territory and can't/won't/doesn't figure that out and take care of it on its own has no beef I'm gonna give a shit about if/when we figure it out and take care of it ourselves