Applying the standard that Obama and Holder apply to the Guantanamo detainees, then it was clearly illegal. It was an execution, without trial, in a situation where they very likely could have captured Usama alive.
Applying the sane standard of “enemy combatant” (with which I am in full agreement), then the action was entirely justified whether or not Usama posed a real threat to those involved in the operation. It’s the same standard that would not extend the US Constitution to the Guantanamo detainees and which justified the waterboarding (which, incidentally, were critical in obtaining intelligence which led to Bin Laden’s demise).
Obama is clearly hypocritical on this point. He decided that getting Bin Laden’s scalp would give him foreign policy credibility with the independents and cheers from conservatives, which would more than compensate for any blowback from his loyalists on the left. Remember, he’s a maxist. The ends justify the means. If he has to park his “principles” for political gain, it’s entirely acceptable as long as it further’s the bigger goal of remaining in power.
I haven’t had a chance to hear Judge Napolitano’s take on this. He’s a Constitutional purist who believes enemy combatants are entitled to full protection of the US Constitution, which would prohibit waterboarding - even if that practice would prevent a nuclear attack on a US city.
HOWEVER, notice they won't release how Osama resisted. He had no gun. I don't have a problem with the Navy Seals following orders. But now we need to get to HOlder and Obama and see if this was legal. But here is what I think...no way the CIA would ever allow this man to trial. He had been involved with the CIA in past.