Do, thanks for your info.
A number of individual experts have given their own conflicting opinions now.

On whether the incursion was legal, I am obviously not qualified to have an opinion.
US government under the Attorney General will have planned it so that they at least had a good case. We will see if it is tested.

They claim that capture WAS an option and it was not predetermined to kill.
They would have to say that of course, and an order to kill will not be on the record if issued.

I know a bit more about the legality of a "fight"
An order to kill a prisoner is not legal and must not be obeyed.
The SEALS were on their own.
The legality depends on what happened and on what they had reasonable grounds to believe.
Your piece does not consider the possibility of a suicide vest or belt.
They would have to consider that he might have such a device.
Likewise his wife, who they gave the benefit of the doubt.