1. That's not a drone strike.
2. That's not an assassination mission. OBL was more valuable alive than dead.
3. Islamibad isn't London and the UK isn't Pakistan. Hard power solutions are for countries that can't control their own airspace and can't/won't be able to capture the person of interest with their own legal/security apparatus. Name one drone strike outside the middle East.
4. You are comparing the most notorious terrorist in world history to a journalistic nuisance. The US would have to be retarded to pursue Assange to the same severity as they pursued OBL.
The Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden and the UN Security Council responded with sanctions (e.g. Security Council resolution 1267).
Despite that the Taliban had been in negotiation since 1998 and repeatedly offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country.
SCR1267 did not authorise military action.
Everything you have written is true, yet misleading.
The Taliban were obliged by SCR1267 to turn over bin Laden. If they had intended to turn over bin Laden to a third country, they would have.
By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.
I did however basically say that she did not send the team to get him. That's what a President signs off on and military leaders plan.
> I never said that I questioned that in the slightest. Not sure where you get that at all.
You literally just questioned that.
And it was a CIA-led, ie. civilian led, operation, not a military-led one.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Opera...
U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) and at least 6 members from JSOC planned it in coordination with the CIA.
> The operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, was carried out in a CIA-led operation
Ironic. You've claimed multiple things. For each case, in the face of conflicting evidence, deflected to argue about another detail.