"Not even Pakistan."
You keep repeting this and it keeps not being true - I too watched exerpts from the Prime Misister (my mistake) of Pakistan's speech (in impeccible English) and he certainly did object (as much as he could on behalf of a country who is dependent on Western aid - as has been pointed out and as you continue to ignore). The "proper justice" you quote was refrring to the killing of bin Laden, not the way it was done and certainly not excusing Pakistan being left out of the loop, humiliated, threatened with having a large number of its people running the risk of being massacred and its troops being in danger fired on by US forces.
The outing of the CIA chief in Pakistan was also an indication of Pakistani/US soured relations; this from this morning's Irish Times:
"In another sign of the soured relations between US and Pakistani intelligence agencies, the Americans have blamed Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) for "outing" the CIA station chief in Pakistan, presumably to demonstrate leverage over the US, and as an expression of anger over allegations that the ISI was complicit in bin Laden's presence in Pakistan.
The US station chief reportedly clashed bitterly with Lieut Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, over the detention of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who shot dead two Pakistanis in January.
ISI officials, who allegedly keep some Pakistani journalists on their payroll, are believed to have given an approximate version of the name of the station chief to a private television station which broadcast it, and to the Nation newspaper, described by the New York Times as "supportive of the ISI".
The previous CIA station chief left Pakistan in December, after he was "outed" in the same manner. The new station chief reportedly played a key role in bin Laden's killing, by supervising the safe house in Abbottabad which spied on bin Laden's compound."
The US sent troops into Pakistan without consulting the govenment, it was prpared to kill a large number of Pakistani non combatants to prevent bib Laden from escaping, and the US troops were prepared exchange fire with Pakistani troops if they were fired upon - of course the Pakistanis were ******** well upset by the episode; who wouldn't be (except Keith, who says he is quite happy to let troops walk in and out of his country unmolested as long as they do it 'legally'.)
"but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets."
So the children were expendable - and those outside the compound quite likely to be injured and killed - assuming that you know the adults knew, of course - didn't read that bit anywhere).
"So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?"
We are objecting to the long term effects of a cowboy military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination, on the fight against terrorism.
I am also objecting to the fact that the US was prepared massacre a large number of uninvolved non- combatants had their plans gone awry and their target had attempted to escape (not fight back).
Jim Carroll