A stray thought, inspired by the editorial I linked in the post immediately below:

Why doesn't the U.S. just kill Stephen Hatfill, the "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation? Why doesn't the government just bomb his house, and make it known that it will kill or capture or bomb the house of anyone who harbors him? Why doesn't the president put a bounty on his head, dead or alive?

After all, the government suspects that Hatfill might have been tinkering with biological weapons around the time that innocent Americans were killed by terrorists, just as the government suspects Saddam was. There's no proof in either case, or even any solid evidence, although in each case investigators have pretty much turned over every rock.

But that's not the point. The point is that the attacks were unspeakably awful -- and isn't the goal to make sure that nothing worse ever happens, despite what some whiny liberals say about civil liberties?

So why doesn't the government just kill Hatfill? Doesn't the "logic" that led to the Iraq War follow in this case?