it’s still not right. We are supposed to bring people to justice through the courts, not through vigilante justice. If bin Laden had resisted in a way that endangered his captors, that would have justified killing him. But if he didn’t, this is simply officially sanctioned murder.Osama bin Laden was not a criminal. He was a terrorist enemy of the U.S. I know this is obvious to people whose minds aren't poisoned by left-wing ideology, but the reason his killing was justified is because he was engaged in warfare against the U.S. His killing would have been justified if he were sleeping peacefully and a member of the SEAL team snuck up and slit his throat. War is in fact "officially sanctioned murder." In war you don't give enemies a fair fight, and you don't arrest them -- unless you need to capture a prisoner for interrogation purposes. You use every advantage to kill the enemy. If an enemy allows himself to be caught unarmed, or at some other disadvantage, that's just too bad for him.
Under our system, criminals—even horrible ones like bin Laden—are supposed to get a trial. I know it doesn’t always work out that way when war is involved, but it should.No, it shouldn't. Bin Laden wasn't a common criminal, and is not "under our system" in any way. He was a foreign enemy whose killing was completely justified. No trial was necessary or desirable.