Good, that would be more evidence like I asked for. A reasonable interpretation consistent with all the reports is in this diary: http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/02/administration-ponders-whether-to-release-photo-evidence-of-bin-ladens-corpse/

What, Iraqi dead don’t count?

There were reports last night that one helicopter ‘had to be destroyed’. Also one diary on Large Orange last night had a report that the compound was destroyed with explosives after everything was over. Put those together with the reported ditching of the body at sea, and you get a fact pattern that while very very far from conclusive becomes rather difficult to distinguish from destruction of evidence and tampering with a crime scene. I hope more evidence surfaces to help us understand what actually happened.

I find it heartening that the questions “Is it legal?” and “Is it wise?” so frequently align. Not always, and there are certainly some bad laws out there, but they do very often agree.

Well, I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but it’s beginning to appear that you, on the other hand, are currently expressing an essentially nihilist view that, because of its inherent tendency toward personal surrender and inaction (learned helplessness), and the extreme danger that an inert and dispirited body politic presents to a democracy, requires much more resistance — that is, a much higher standard of proof — than do most views.

Giving up on improvement of the country is bad even if it appears to be the only rational thing to do.

Even if that were true, which frankly I doubt since there is a US political dimension in addition to international political dimensions to all of this, it’s still our responsibility as citizens to pay attention, understand, and form opinions.

The law both forbids certain acts, and imposes penalties for committing them. Just because the law failed to prevent things in this case doesn’t necessarily mean the prescribed penalties will never be imposed on the actors.

So your point is “Resistance is futile”?

Yes. The point of many commenters here is that that illegality is a major problem and a source of both illegitimacy and of numerous likely future negative consequences. What (please pardon my difficulty parsing your comments) is your point about the illegality of the operation?

That is commendable. I’m sincerely puzzled that you seem not to feel sympathy for the innocents who have just been rather thoroughly shit upon in the process of achieving your goal.

Sorry, my fault, I should have said: By what legitimate authority?

No doubt. But by what authority?

Uh huh. Opposing stuff one is unlikely to be able to immediately change “adds up to childish, futile rage, and nothing more.” Rigght. Oy.

Photo up on NYTimes front page now.

Maybe there’s a perfectly innocent explanation for the whole thing. For example, the G. clan could have been hosting a Pakistani wedding.

1. Well, it ain’t a proper war either, now is it?

2. Sorry, your ‘moral issue’ framing confuses my very simple mind. Is this in re. the targeting of Pops G., of Bad Son G., and/or of Perhaps Less Bad Son G.? Or is it about the collateral damage of Bad Son G., and/or of the Grandkids G.?

1. Notwithstanding #2: “Charged” is different from “convicted”, isn’t it?
2. Notwithstanding #1: Wrong guy.

Got anything more?

Really?

World English Dictionary

assassinate (əˈsæsɪˌneɪt)

— vb
1. to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack

The only sentence Ayn Rand ever wrote that I agree with is “Words have meaning.” Without question, and without aggrandizing Gaddhafi the Elder in any way, this word means what was attempted.

“To understand these changes, it is necessary to understand some background concerning how the NSA accomplishes the collection activity authorized under [redacted name of program].” … Is the answer to that “how” question just “data mining”?

I wonder whether the redaction is a USC statute reference rather than a program name. Then the “how” might include a description of having a telco send a copy of domestically intercepted communications into a line that ends somewhere out of the US, creating a leg with one end outside of the US. Then the spooks could tap that line and perhaps have a halfway plausible argument that they’re technically conforming to statute, even though the information they’re getting by doing so is actually US-US communications. Just a loophole-threading idea, and I gladly admit it’s perhaps a far stretch.