Replies

As a practical matter, although the US military would probably not have summarily executed him if they captured him, keep in mind this is a third world country and third world rebels killing a third world dictator should come as no surprise. If you are going to overthrow the king, you better make sure the king is dead.

I should like to think the US military would follow all legal orders according to their most excellent and proud tradition. While we have an awesome deadly force, we have a military with duty, honor and a chain of command.

I agree, this type of killing absolutely fits the pattern of mob rule in islamic nations, where prisoners are routinely mutilated and displayed after they are subdued at the whim of their captors.

The pattern that does not fit is the first 43 U.S. Presidents that never publicly condoned the arrest or live capture - followed by deliberate summary execution - of the leader of another nation and the 44th who failed to express any concern about the rule of law not being respected when he made his public statement of support for the actions.

He made this mistake - and many Americans are completely confused - probably because there has been so much talk over the past few years about high-value targets with a standing U.S. order to capture or kill them. But we forget the nature of the capture or kill order - it does not mean that if we capture someone alive and they are subdued and are not a threat to hurt anyone or escape then we can kill them at our leisure because the order said "capture or kill". The kill part is only in effect they are acquired but they can't be captured and have to be killed due to the circumstances. The killing is not optional, to be effected if the captors "are really angry" or "whipped up in a frenzy".

Every other world leader - all politicians - would certainly want a trial if they were apprehended. The shoe would be horribly uncomfortable if it were on the other foot.