Class discussion.

Today in class, we had a very deep discussion about killing innocent people and about Bush signing the executive orders to send troops to Pakistan if Bin Laden is there. My personal opinion is that for once Bush actually did something correct. Our military has had so many opportunities to capture, even kill Laden; however, each time, there is an interference. I believe if Pakistan were truly an ally of the United States, they would have no problem having U.S. troops on their soil, especially since Laden is one of the hardest men for the U.S. to capture. At this point in time, I also believe, it would be acceptable to take a few innocent bystanders lives. As I see it, if Laden is in their city, country, where ever he may be, and the people do nothing about it, they are risking their own lives. It's a little thing the law likes to refer to as "guilt by association." If Bin Laden is there, and those people don't do anything about it (try to kill him or run him off), I believe they have every right to die if the U.S. gets tipped that he is located there. As Mr. Newburn pointed out, the more we back off, the more incentives he gains to protect himself. If the troops refuse to shoot because of civilians, the unintended consequences may be that Laden constantly surrounds himself with women and children. This man is extremely evil. The longer he stays alive, the more likely it becomes that another attack like 9/11 will occur. I say that if the U.S. sees him in a crowd, attack. If the U.S. gets reasonable proof he is in Pakistan, march through, with or without permission, and take him out once and for all!