What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

Whether or not someone has broken laws is itself a determination that there are things like due process for.

As an American, would you be okay with that? And if not, why is it more okay if the US does the same thing in Pakistan? How does Sunday's raid not set a terrible precedent for future international affairs?

I think you may be parsing words a bit closely and arriving at an incorrect version of events. The news reports SAY that the US "wanted" or "planned" to take him alive, he fought, they had to kill him. That is the story of chronological events as claimed by the US.

I don't think it's directly comparable, capturing a diabolical and long-missing terrorist, with 'a guy the Chinese government doesn't like.' OBL had no presumed innocence whatsoever, because we a) had overwhelming evidence that he was guilty, and b) he repeatedly and in detail claimed responsibility for the actions that led to his demise.

A major difference here also is that, should such a guy exist - who had caused major terror events in China and admitted it, celebrated it even - the US wouldn't have to rely upon Chinese helicopters to get the guy because we would do it ourselves if they asked. The only reason we took unilateral action in Pakistan is that they refused to do so, being somewhat corrupted by forces that support OBL. Given that, if America refused to cooperate with China in capturing an infamous and clearly guilty terrorist, I wouldn't give two shits if they came in and got the guy themselves - it would be the appropriate thing for them to do.

China will soon be the dominant power in the world.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How many claim they are guilty, when they are in fact innocent - and there is a huge amount of evidence that they are guilty?

I don't know that Osama Bin Laden ever claimed he was guilty of terrorism. To be sure, he boasted about masterminding the 9/11 attacks. But to him, those attacks wouldn't have constituted terrorism, just freedom-fighting against American troops in Saudi Arabia. The individuals who carried out the 9/11 attacks were as terrorist to Bin Laden as the Nicaragua Contras were to Ronald Reagan: not at all. Killings are a matter of fact; terror is a matter of interpretation. And the US government's interpretation of terror is no better than anybody else's.

Though I do think there is a difference between purposefully targeting civilians as your primary focus and being reckless about who you kill in a mis-guided military debacle.

I think.

But the Iraq invasion "purposelessly targeted civilians" as an unavoidable consequence. Baghdad was where they lived, after all. It might have been "misguided", depending on your political perspective, but I'd argue that it was more calculated than "a reckless military debacle".

I see no other motive for insisting on "due process" for the leader of a group which declared war on us years ago, and who has since initiated operations which have killed thousands of innocents than self-congratulation on the excellence of our moral characters. And that is something hypocritical and disgusting.

... It was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Bin Laden – the Nazi leadership – the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution “would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride ... the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear”. He insisted upon judgment at Nuremberg, which has confounded Holocaust-deniers ever since.

Killing instead of capturing Osama Bin Laden was a missed opportunity to prove to the world that this charismatic leader was in fact a vicious criminal, who deserved to die of old age in prison, and not as a martyr to his inhuman cause.

Once again, in war the rules change.