by uebermann » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:41 pm
How much authority do you think is necessary? Its not like we were fighting another nation here - it was a terrorist group and its leader. We "declared war" on them in about the only way possible. We'd been bombing/attacking places where we thought he was hiding for years now so its not like it was a secret that we were going after them.
Also, you can't always play by the rules and expect to win. I think the US has done some pretty questionable stuff in the past 10 years, but traditional warfare is pretty much a thing of the past, especially when you aren't dealing with an army but rather insurgents hiding all over the place. It wasn't like we were using nerve gas or agent orange, but some targets/areas were bombed that should not have been and our military should be held more accountable than they currently are/were.
I think the issue is that "war" isn't what it used to be any more and the thought about war and tactics used in it in the past are trying to be applied to the present. No longer do we stand and trade shots on a battlefield, in nice, even rows.
In regards to the "assassination", I personally wouldn't want to stand there in a dangerous situation and wait to see if someone was going to put their hands up or not. If it even looked like they were going to reach for a weapon, I'd light them up. The truth is, killing him saved us all years and years in the courts (not to mention tax dollars) and its not like we had concerns about him possibly being innocent.
As long as these types of assassinations are something that doesn't become common place, I don't think it should be a problem. Against terrorist cells/organizations, I don't think there much other choice, especially in that region of the world.