You don't think there's enough enough evidence of his direct involvement with (and taking responsibility for) terrorist acts to merit something like this? It is pretty obvious to me that the guy deserved a very hefty sentence for his crimes - at the very least, a life sentence with no parole. I'd prefer that he could be brought to trial, but given that I've heard he was killed in a firefight, I doubt there was a lot of choice in the matter. There aren't any consistent ways to shoot someone and incapacitate them without killing them.
I'm not sure that I completely understand what you are saying, but nevertheless...
The judgment was already made by the government many years ago. Keep in mind that the US has essentially been at war with al Qaida, so Osama's viewed not as an international criminal but as a highly important enemy combatant. Besides, as I said, there was literally no opportunity to give him a trial, since he died in his first physical engagement with US troops. I don't think we could have possibly captured him alive without wasting lots of time and people in the process.
I'm pretty sure he wanted to kill random people just to show his hatred and harm the US - the WTC attack was not a personal attack on the victims, but a large one on the country itself. It doesn't make any sense to think that he might have individually and specifically condemned the victims to death for past crimes. There is a big difference between a random and unprompted attack on civilians, and between a wartime raid on a dangerous enemy.
Yeah, but all the effective ones are luck based, especially in a stressful situation (like a shootout). If someone isn't wearing proper body armor, any possibly incapacitating shot would only be a few inches (or less) away from a lethal one, so you can't guarantee anything.
I think it was a small team. I've heard that Obama specifically asked for a very targeted attack to avoid the carnage/damage associated with typical military activities.
