On May 4, 2011, at 5:23 PM, dperrin at comcast.net wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't know why Obama [doesn't] simply state that this
> was an execution of an unarmed, captive man. The majority of the
> public would cheer anyway -- perhaps even more strongly. This new
> tale about bin Laden reaching for a weapon is right out of a cop
> drama. Pretty sad.
Without peering into a depraved mind, one can cite at least one possible reason. Osama Bin Laden was, if indeed it was him they killed, not merely an unarmed captive man: he was also a Most Wanted criminal suspect under indictment for murders. Preventing the completion of the process of criminal justice by intentional killing of the prime suspect, and destruction of the evidence constituted by his physical remains, obviously constitutes total obstruction of justice in the plain (and almost certainly legal) sense of those words. Perhaps Obama has some dim recollection that it was the crime of Obstruction of Justice for which his revered predecessor Richard Milhous Nixon merited impeachment and jail time.
Shane Mage
"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to"