We don't have 2 standards for American justice. We either set a high example to the world, or we do not.
Keep backpedaling. First you acted like it was a police action, and that the marshals never kill anyone. You got proven wrong on that. Then you started talking about the justice department. Nope, no sale. Now you just keep nattering on about "justice", ignoring the fact the standards of conduct for a counter-terroist action or a war are quite different from those used by your local PD. It's like saying people should act exactly the same at a wedding and a funeral because they both take place in a church.
There were agents watching the place from down the street and from satellite photos. They can count guards.
But they
can't count who's inside the house, what weapons may be present, or whether the whole place is rigged to blow at the flick of a switch.
No they can't, without a gun.
I have a little sister. I outweigh her by fifty pounds and six inches. She could easily hand my rear to me.
Women are generally smaller, weaker,
Operative word highlighted.
and more likely to want to live to protect her children.
Stereotype.
Real men are stronger than women, especially 5 foot tall.
No True Scotsman, switched from "generally" to an absolute truth. It says something for you that you can't be consistent for two consecutive sentences.
No man has reason to be afraid of significant physical damage from a small, 29 year old lady without a weapon.
Unless, of course, the woman
may be armed or wearing a suicide vest, in which case caution is quite reasonable. Not "fear", I emphasize. "Caution". No word-twisitng.
She would have had balls to rush an armed soldier, trained in martial arts. I doubt this is the real story. We've heard several different stories, starting with her being used as a human shield.
So of course, this one has to be a lie, right? People lift cars off their kids in emergencies; a woman could actually discommode a soldier if she were so inclined.
We have no proof she "charged" the soldier. Even if she did, what could she do? If the SEALs have fear of women, they need to go to FIST for more training.
Again, not fear. Stop using that straw man.
No True Scotsman, unsupported claim.
watches intently to determine if the suspect is reaching for a weapon. They just woke Bin Laden and his wife up from bed, so they were in their pajamas.
"Freeze! Don't move!" *suspect moves* "I said don't move!" *suspect keeps moving* *suspect gets shot*
It's even more cut and dried in a war. If you don't want to be viewed as a threat, lie facedown on the ground with your hands behind your head. Even that's not guaranteed, if there's a risk of a suicide vest.
Bin Laden could hear he was surrounded, and was not so stupid as to try to defeat 40 soldiers.
24, and he didn't know what the heck was going on.
Oh, so now we call killing unarmed women "neutralizing" - to give it a euphemism. Shooting a lady who posed no significant threat is no one's job.
I'm calling it that as a shorthand for "making someone stop being a threat". It's generally used for killing people. I'm using the more intense term, though I don't know if it's technically correct. Nice job semanticizing, though.
It was someone's home, including a children's playground, and peaceful neighborhood. We do not arbitrarily declare any area "a combat zone" as a "ethics, morals and justice free zone".
Hyperbole, emotive language. There were big walls around the place, which would generally be enough to stop any bullets flying outward.
They are paragons of law enforcement. That is what I meant. The SEALs need to train with the US Marshals if they are to be used in any mission where capture is the preferable objective.
That's like saying social workers need to train firefighters how to remove babies from cribs in fires; their expertise in the matter is under very different conditions.
Not all the time. If you are at a protest, or stopped for a traffic ticket, and make a "threatening gesture" (such as flipping the bird) they are are trained to distinguish what is truly threatening or not. Do you say it is ok for them to just shoot.
Gosh, I dunno? Am I a terrorist with a history of painting myself as a messiah figure who would likely be very glad to become a martyr? Are these hypothetical assailants in my house, which may be rigged up with who-knows-what?
He should have been instructed to capture first. The situation did NOT warrant killing unarmed man and especially an unarmed woman.
He apparently thought it did, and could not know either of the two were unarmed.
Bin Laden was a fugitive. Obama should have sent Interpol
No arrest authority in most parts of the world, very little counter-terrorism experience.
Note the part of their name where it says "US".
They quickly destroyed the evidence. It is not Muslim custom to dump a body in the ocean. Muslim custom is to have a funeral with the family present, like everyone else.
Muslim custom allows sea burial. You've descended to the level of bald-faced denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea#Islam
Also, if an enemy may dig up the grave to mutilate the body, it is also allowed to bury the deceased at sea to avoid mutilation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_funeral
Burial rituals should normally take place as soon as possible
The general rule is "24 hours", such as Saddam, who was returned and buried in about 22.
Also, Saudi Arabia didn't want him back, and Christianity, AFAIK, doesn't actually
require family to be present. You're confusing cultural custom with religious.
Not as much as what Bin Laden had in his head.
Yes, and?
Now conspiracy theorists will suspect that Bin Laden was killed to protect Cheney et al.
They've been crying he was framed/on ice for years before, why stop now? Evidence is only
Bin Laden could have cleared or confirmed them as suspects, if he wasn't lynched.
Call me crazy, but a guy who twice denied taking part in two separate terrorist incidents, then admitted it later, is not exactly a credible witness.
Also,
he's had over 9 years to protest his innocence in any more than a token fashion. He hasn't. As a general rule, innocent men don't confess to acts of terror for no reason. If they had something over on him, why not force him to claim Saddam had WMDs back in 2002?
Your series of posts are made up of nothing more than an arbitrary and uninformed standard you are holding the SEALs to, despite it existing in nothing more than your own head.I wash my hands of you.