Don T., your sympathy for bin Laden and his pack of bully-boys is IMPLICIT in what you have said all along.

I have pointed out several times that any country (including, when and if the time comes, the U. K.) has the legal right of "hot pursuit" into another sovereign, and for that matter, neutral country to go after criminals, terrorists, or other hostiles fleeing to or hiding out in that country. This is recognized in international law, and the precedent goes back to the days when a pursued pirate ship would try to elude its pursuers by sailing into a "neutral harbor." The neutral country may not like it, but the incursion was often preferable to being thought of as in collusion with the pirates and hence, culpable as well. I (and I'm far from alone in this) see this as exactly parallel to the legality of the U. S. Navy Seals raid.

As to taking bin Laden alive and bringing him to trial, one of the scenarios that was deemed quite likely was that bin Laden's followers might very well take innocent hostages or just operate at random with the threat of killing, say, twenty civilians for each day bin Laden is held captive pending trial unless he is released immediately. And of unleashing a campaign of mass murder of innocents if he is found guilty and executed.

There is no question of bin Laden's guilt. Not only is there more than ample evidence, but HE has proudly said that he's responsible. So, this way, no muss, no fuss. And it sends a graphic message to anyone who may wish to replace or emulate him. "Sooner or later, you will meet that same fate."

Even if the way the matter was handled does offend your delicate sensibilities.

One does not have to say something in so many specific words, Don T., to make it bloody obvious that THAT is where your sympathies lie.

So YOU are the one who owes ME an apology. Are YOU man enough?

Don Firth

P. S. Just as a point, as I mention above ("hot pursuit"). As to the BBC article biLL linked to just above, the precedent has already been set. Some centuries ago, AND it is in the body of International Law. Not to be used willy-nilly, but when all else fails. OR when the supposedly neutral or friendly country is, in reality but surreptitiously, offering "safe harbor" to the fugitives. And that IS a strong suspicion in this case.