If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty?

[sabrina 1]

204. Charges should have been filed. Why were they not? Charges were filed against Bin Laden

for the Embassy bombings. Because there was enough evidence to file charges, we were able to see that evidence, no one disputed he was most likely responsible. But no charges were filed against him for 9/11, because as some top military personnel stated, 'we did not have evidence'.

So if the US Govt files charges when they have evidence, we can conclude that if they do not file charges, they have no evidence. And without charges, without evidence, a man was targeted and assassinated and each time reporters and others ask why, there are no answers.

I have asked over and over again of those defending this action, 'what exactly did he do'? I have received responses, but nothing to back them up, that he 'was a threat to the US, that he was planning things against the US'. Fine, then explain what exactly was he planning, and who was he controlling? According to all information we have, he was not even known by most people in the ME, they didn't even know he was dead when questioned about their reaction.

So, until we see some evidence, and there has been plenty of time for that by now, all we know is that the US Government decided he needed to die.