So This is the first of my Posts...and its a bit of a deuzy. What I propose as a possibility will definitely sound extreme. But it rests on a single question. Was the order really "shoot to kill?"

Because what does it mean if Osama was trying to surrender? If he was waving the proverbial "white flag" and we shot him...in cold blood. Would that be a crime? I mean think about it. What if in those final moments, the fearless Osama turned out to be a total coward, and was on his knees groveling for his life.

I am of the opinion that to shoot someone in such a state is wrong. Where is the honor? Where is the nobility? where is the humanity?

I am in no way suggesting this happened. It is only a hypothetical. But if that were to have happened, I am of the opinion it would be a war crime, and that the person who gave the "shoot to kill" order is the one who should be held responsible. Does that sound extreme?

Of course, should how Osama reacted, as an unarmed man when masked gunmen entered his house be considered? Should the question of whether or not the order of "shoot to kill" is considered a war crime be dependent upon how the person to be assassinated reacted? The argument that it does, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Quite frankly, I am greatly disturbed by a nation that thinks it's okay for a government to order an assassination on a man for a crime for which he has not been charged, nor evidence presented in any sort of court.

You can make the argument that he is guilty and there fore okay to assasinate him. But if you do, you cannot simultaneously make the argument that you are following the rule of law...because you are not.

It becomes a problem when you expect others to follow the rule of law, when you do not. And self interest is always the reason given for why it is okay to not follow the rule of law.