You’ve hit on the unspeakable. No public figure can give a credible answer to your question while remaining logically consistent and in power.

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” - George Orwell

Which is why so many factions in Washington are putting so much effort to undermine potential challengers as the American destiny is to be number 1. The moment another group becomes more powerful, they know that what you describe will occur.

The Dalai Lama initiated terrorist attacks against China? If not, then it's not even remotely the same thing and you know it.

I imagine bin laden was still protected by Pakistani laws, same as people inside the US are protected by US laws, even if they've pissed off some other country

You imagine incorrectly. As a non-state actor, bin Laden was not subject to the protection of any nation's laws. This has been international law for over a century, and this view was upheld by the U.N. Moreover, Pakistan's government itself said it had no issues with the legality of the operation, and indeed elements of Pakistan's government and military participated in aspects of the operation.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), regardless of which politics they're battling for. This is because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.