I don't want to belabor the point. In the larger context of Bin Laden's death, the terminology is perhaps insignificant. However, you are citing the denotative meanings of the term and of course, in that context, an execution can denote a legally sanctioned proceeding. However, clearly for some people, whether Bin Laden's death was legal and whether the U.S. had any valid judicial writ to impose such punishment are very moot issues. In objecting to the term, I simply wished to avoid both its denotative and connotative meanings. As A friend of mine recently commented concerning Bin Laden's death, there are persons whose very existence and presence negate the rationality of lawfulness and compel those of us who wish to survive the existential threat they pose to embrace "extra legal means," not as a preferred but as an essential behavior. The bullet to Bin Laden's skull is the hard testimony to that truth. 

"Who cares for (international) law when it comes to a good killing."

What Osama bin Laden said on 9/12/01?

"Who cares for (international) law when it comes to a good killing."

What Osama bin Laden said on 9/12/01?

Who cares for (international) law when it comes to a good killing.

(Shall we reflect on this attitude?)

You misunderstood my objection to the term "execution." I find the connotations of the term negative and was objecting to the author's use of the term in this context.  I firmly believe the killing of Bin Laden fully justified and could care less whether it conforms to international law.  

Maybe we are squeezing him, maybe the whole thing is a false flag via Dr.P? :-)

I think the way we took him out was perfect, next SOB OBL wannabe wahabi will get the same special delivery, hopefully we reduce the 10 year delivery service.

@Traveller

Let's not get carried away.

You have a very valid point that, if it was possible, OBL should have been taken prisoner and sent to Guantanamo for interrogation.

But, as you well know, Obama cannot 'afford' to take terrorist leaders prisoner.  He is stuck with his past and with his 'liberal' supporters.  What would he do with them?  Interrogations to gain intelligence are out of the question in his naive worldview.

So, the killling was probably "a mega-mistake" ONLY in comparison with capture.  Not in comparison with the status-quo-ante.     

The Seal who wasted the SOB OBL is a national hero. The Americans who took part in the operation: ditto. President Obama did something that President Bush should have had as his highest priority from 9/12 on. Bravo Obama, conservatives who don't like it, go join the Michael Moore whiners club.

I loved that they dumped the SOB in the sea. No pictures, no problem, I just hope the skipper in charge drapped the the SOB in the American flag as they dropped the excrement into the Arabian Sea.  

Now for some dilemnas the killing might pose, check out the Kappert News wire:

http://kappertisle.tumblr.com/

@ Kindler

If you prefer the word "killing" that would be fine.  Just don't call it a "murder", which would normally be illegal and immoral.

Al Qaeda is at war with the USA and does all it can to harm Americans.  So killing/executing its leader IN THAT WAR is neither "unwarranted", nor "illegal", nor "immoral".  

I'm sorry but perhaps you could explain why OBL's death should be called an "execution"? Is the implication that it was unwarranted, illegal, and immoral? 

Obama had absolutely no choice killing OBL, when he was offered the opportunity. A refusal would have leaked out, and it would have been Obama's political death. Americans would never forgive him. The American urge for revenge following 9/11 is too big. Thus, this one Obama act may be an outlier. A second reason for Obama was: he absolutely needs something positive to boost his chances for reelection in 2012.

The facts, as presented to us, learn Obama opted for the difficult solution of going in and killing OBL, instead of just bombing the house. That is bold. But on the other hand, he ordered a kill and a dump in the sea, instead of capture, because this solution doesn't require more tough decisions from Obama. What would he have done with a living OBL? Guantanamo Bay prison? Military tribunals? Water-boarding for more information? All policies he vilified in the past.

Obama will address again all Muslims next week. He will continue the fable Islam is not the root of the hate versus the West, the infidels, the non-Muslims. Obama (and other Western Establishment leaders) don't recognize that Reformist Muslims (who believe some parts of the Koran are not valid any more) are a tiny minority within Islam, have absolutely no power in Muslim lands, and their teachings are heretic for devote and moderate Muslims (who believe all the words in the Koran are the words of Allah, and nothing he said can be wrong).

Somebody has to explain me why he killed OBL and goes in partnership with Al Quaeda in Benghazi...

Your question is rhetorical, and meant to underscore Mr. Obama's incoherent foreign policy. But it is a good question, nevertheless. One way to understand would be to "follow the money," if one could do so. Another would be to think that it is just another example of "military-industrial" opportunism; an example not much different from that of Mr. Obama's predecessor—in fact, despite the President's campaign rhetoric, he has not done much differently than Mr. Bush, the younger. It is opportunistic (and nothing more) simply because invading, say, Syria or Iran, would pose too many practical risks, so why not let the water "run down hill?" Finally, it is a good excuse to (unwittingly?) turn the US into a police state.

The threat Arab regimes have on US sovereignty is minimal. Just as Plato's Republic was the ideal or perfect regime in (some say ironical) speech, but in reality would be completely unworkable, the Arab threat is mostly highlighted in a certain brand of abstract neo-conservative speech, but has not shown itself as a high existential menace, 9-11 not excluded. And now that our friends the Pakistanis have been deprived of their erstwhile sub rosa guest, the world must be safer, and we can begin to extract ourselves from these non-productive Arab entanglements? But I make a bad joke. It will never get better, because we will never leave these Muslim lands, and cease to cavort with them as equals.

Muslims can never be "our friends." Who would ever want that? But that does not mean they are, ipso facto, our enemies. They should be denied immigration status, and we should be doing all that is possible to obtain economic independence from them. Let them live in peace, and separately within their own emotional, intellectual, and geographical deserts.

Please note that my analysis of threat does not include the European and British situation. There, Muslims pose an immediate existential cultural and political threat. In the US the analog is the Mexican reconquista. If Mexicans were Muslims, the US would already be over. As it is, we have a few years left.

Somebody has to explain me why he killed OBL and goes in partnership with Al Quaeda in Benghazi for turning non-fundamentalist Libya into a new Al Quaeda stronghold.

My brain is not able to understand this kind of retarded stupidity from a man everybody calls "highly intelligent".

On top of that not the slightest intelligent reaction from the different "services".

The soundbite becomes more important than the long-term planning.

Cheers.