I'm an American expat living in Europe so I was asleep during the big announcement. I actually found out this morning through a text message while I was finishing breakfast.

From my friend: Dude, osama is dead. But doesnt the us stand 4 justice 4 all? Does that not mean there should have been a trail[sic]? Just my 5cents.

Now, from what I've read, bin Laden was killed in the firefight so there was no possibility of a trial. I doubt he was willing to being taken alive so this was the inevitable outcome. But what if the alternative had happened? What if they had taken him behind the compound, put him against the wall and shot him? Would that still be justice?

I think it would.

This may make you ask what in the world kind of definition I have for justice, but if we look at our system we see what justice is not. You see, laws and rules are not justice. Due process is not justice. Trials are not justice. They're really all just instruments that are meant to be pillars holding up justice, but are not justice themselves. All of these things only point to what justice is, namely, the innocent going free and the guilty being punished. That is justice. And that's the whole point of all our systems. That the innocent may go free and the guilty be punished.

Take the right to a speedy trial for example, part of the 6th Amendment in the Bill of Rights(I don't mean to imply that only American law is relevant, but rather, it is simply what I will think of regarding law since I'm an American - for this discussion I'd actually love to hear non-American viewpoints). We consider it unjust to have to wait three years to get a trial not because we think the trial is good, but rather, if you've been wrongly accused then you should not have to wait three years to have an opportunity to prove innocence.

The whole purpose of a trial of Osama bin Laden would be to prove innocence or guilt. The trial wouldn't be the justice itself, it's only there to make sure we have the right guy.

Except we already know the answer. In fact, bin Laden not only repeatedly admitted to his crimes, he promised to keep doing them. Now here's what important, in fact, really important: the extreme rarity of this case. Osama bin Laden was the only person of this decade to which this can apply. What I mean is, I know what the responses are going to be? "If the President can declare someone an enemy, have him assassinated, and then say it's all fair justice with no need of a trial, what's to stop a president from killing all his enemies?" I absolutely agree with someone who would say this, which is why I want to stress the extreme rarity of this case. If there is ever the slightest shred of doubt, a trial is absolutely necessary for justice. If anyone ever declares "but I'm innocent" then there absolutely needs to be a trial. But there was no doubt over the specific case of Osama bin Laden, which is why I think what he got is as just as a fair trial in our highest courts.