The writer poses some important questions which unfortunately are not considered by most of the letter writers to date and that is perhaps as distrubing as the Americans actions themselves.
One of the respndents clearly does not like lawyers but has he/she considered that the law is the thin line that divides civilized people from the barbaric nonsense that equates murder with justice.
Assuming for the moment that the person allegedly killed was in fact bin Laden (by no means a certainty) he was protected by the Geneva conventions as the leader of a militia type group. As such he was entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war. On the Americans own account he was not armed, not offering resistance and there was no evidence that he had weapons or explosives concealed on his person. One cannot in law shoot someone because they might pose a threat.
There is also the question of the right of the Americans to unilaterally invade another country's sovereign jurisdiction. the Pakistan government says that it was not informed in advance and if true they cannot have consented. The Seals were therefore acting in breach of international law in doing what they did.
The writer of the srticle also assumes that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. In fact he did not confess and always denied involvement. The FBI said they had no hard evidence linking OBL to 9/11 and he is/was not on their most wanted list for that crime.
Given the rapid changes in the official story and the huge number of unanswered quesitons about this murder and disposal of the body one should be very cautious in jumping to any conclusions on the evidence to date. Much less should we be lauding the Americans for what they have done. Australia is not advantaged by association with such international lawlessness.

How extraordinary. The author refers to US laws (which may well prohibit certain actions by US citizens or military personnel) but makes no reference to Pakistan law, which, apart from international law, governs a killing in Pakistan.

Bin Laden had openly declared war on America and openly encouraged
the shooting of Americans.

In war, unless you are flying the white flag and have your hands
up, you are likely to get shot.

Bin Laden paid for the consequences of his actions.

Good on Obama for having the guts to go ahead with it all.

James,

One is only a prisoner of war if one surrenders. There is no indication that he had done so.

@ Shadow Minister

No, that is not the case. One becomes a prisoner of war by being captured. OBL offered no resistance in any meaningful sense of the word. He was therefore entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

*OBL offered no resistance in any meaningful sense of the word.*

James, you don't have a scrap of evidence to support your claim.

Fact is that wearing suicide vests has become a common practise
amongst bin Laden and his friends. Either he or his wife could
well have been wearing one.

Bin Laden made it clear that he would not be taken alive, so those
capturing him would have endangered their own lives, if he was not
submissive, with his hands up.

That was their judgement really, war is war, people get shot if
they don't openly surrender. There is no evidence that he did that.