Here's a story from CNN about retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, quoted by two observers as saying that the killing of Bin Laden was legal and justified--and that he was "proud" of the SEALS. At the bottom of the story was a reminder to a fact stored deep in my mental hard drive--that Stevens was a WWII Navy Veteran--specifically, he was part of the team that cracked the code that identified the time and place of Admiral Yamamoto's fateful final flight, which was located and shot down as a result.My memory was that that moment had caused the young(er) Stevens some significant angst, and a bit of research turns up that I was right.
What I don't understand--and it is probably because I am not possessed of a first class legal mind like the great JP Stevens--is why the distinction? Why would the targeted assassination of Yamamoto in a military aircraft, in a war zone, during the Second World War--cause Stevens angst, but the targeted assassination of an unarmed Bin Laden--in a house replete with women and children in a city smack dab in the middle of an "ally" in the war on terror--seems to be something he applauds.
Perhaps he's just getting wiser as he gets older. Would have been nice to have this wisdom while he sat on the bench.
Posts
