The goal of the new logic is clear: it is to bring the accused before a competent court. Anything else would not be mere attainder. How much that goal may have shaped the planning and execution of the Abbottabad operation is not clear, but if it did so we should not refer to the raid as an \u201cassassination.\u201d\u009d We have been told that the assault team was ready to recover its target alive if that should prove possible. If military arrest meets resistance, of course, military necessity requires it to be forcibly overcome, and if that costs the target\u2019s life, the loss may be proportionate to the evil of leaving him at large. That the target was personally unarmed in this case need not be decisive if he was effectively defended by others, though how much resistance was actually offered has still not been made clear. Can this serve as an explanation of what happened? Perhaps. Yet on this account we might have expected to hear a word not very much used in recent days: it was surely a failed mission!<\/p>\n
Christian citizens need not expect, and should not pretend to, total certainty about the rights and wrongs of this or any other public act. It is no part of God\u2019s plan for their holiness or for their service of the neighbor that they must be all-knowing about the morality of what others have done, even when it is done in the name of the political community. Christians can be useful citizens, though, by being rather fussy about the justifications and explanations offered by political actors for their consumption and approval. Faced with extraordinary actions, they may demand thorough and coherent explanations on morally serious and law-regarding grounds. For myself, I am left thinking that whatever good account there is to be given of why bin Laden was killed, it has yet to be fully made public.<\/p>\n