"Human rights" groups show true colours, condemn Osama's killing.

So-called "human rights" groups are rarely ever actually for human rights. They are merely against whatever they find undesirable, such as Israel and the United States. In their bigotry, their honesty has shown who they really support; terrorists.

Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law."

It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.

"This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination."

Robertson said bin Laden should have stood trial, just as World War Two Nazis were tried at Nuremburg or former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague after his arrest in 2001.

The differences between Osama and the Nazis were enormous. First, the Nazis surrendered. Second, many Nazis were NOT given trials and were simply shot, while others got away or were helped to get away. This line of thinking is not an appeal to human rights, but merely support for giving wanted terrorists a chance to get away without punishment. Terrorists like Osama are not simple criminals, they are our enemies in wartime.

If this IS a violation of international law, then international law is wrong, and anyone with a good conscience will have no problem with Osama's death without trial.