Reply #42: He was unarmed and put up no resistance, according to the White House's

[coalition_unwilling]

own revised account (alhough they may have revised their account yet again). I swear I heard one of Obama's flunkies say OBL was an 'enemy combatant' (the word a scourge of Geneva and most civilized opinion) and therefore not deserving of protections extended to legitimate combatants. Can't source it for you, but Sabrina 1 probably can, if she's reading this.

Since when is it kosher in military rule of engagement to shoot an unarmed man not offering any resistance? Do you think all of us referring to it as an extra-judicial execution bear Obama any animus or ill will? Or are we, to quote Satan, just a 'focus group'?

Do you believe in 'due process of law' as an organizing principle of civilization? If so, don't you think it bears discussing by the populace? And, if not, what do you propose in place of 'due process of law'?