The almost unanimous approval and even jubilation occasioned by the summary execution of Osama Bin Laden sickens me.
Even the leaders of Nazi Germany, who were ultimately deemed responsible for the deaths of millions, were arrested, not presumed guilty and shot on sight. They were tried with due process being scrupulously observed. We did it precisely because unlike the Nazis, our constitution prevents the establishment of a police state whose leaders can arbitrarily kill someone they have declared an enemy of the state. Another reason this was done was to make sure the vanquished German populace had no justification to claim that their former leaders were victims of a victors' kangaroo court.
When George W. Bush was having supposed terrorists imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, liberals howled about the flagrant violations of the presumption of innocence, the right of habeus corpus, and the Geneva Convention.
With what appears to be very few exceptions that I can see, these same liberals are delighted that Obama sent his button men in to hit Osama Bin Laden, in one fell swoop violating the three supposedly imperishable principles they held so dear when Bush molested them.
They are only bothered by the right's attempt to rob Obama of credit for a deed well and truly done and assign it to George W. Bush. Apparently that's your only cause for complaint, eh?
Since Bin Laden's murder is a cause for joy for so many, I make a modest proposal.
From now on, police should shoot all criminal suspects on sight, even when they're not resisting arrest. We know they're all guilty anyway, otherwise the cops wouldn't be after them.
In war, we will shoot enemy soldiers, even when they attempt to surrender.
Let's quit pussyfooting around and be consistent.