So, it must be political in nature. If this is the case, why would our "military officials" be "seething" over this leak?

It's fairly simple. Intentionally killing civilians is a war crime. Even a disregard for the safety of civilians when pursuing military objectives can be a war crime.

This is why press releases from the military always start out with "The US military never intentionally targets civilians". RMP as a former PR officer can tell you that these press releases are pre-written and ready to go. The US always states that it does not intentionally target civilians because doing so is a war crime.

If military officials are seething over this it is probably because it amounts to prima facie evidence of war crimes, and in Afghanistan, since Afghanistan is a signatory to the Rome Treaty, that means that charges could be brought against the US in the ICC.

First, there is no "irrefutable evidence" of Bin Laden's involvement at any level, much less as "mastermind", of the 9/11/01 attacks. The FBI has refused for 7 years to issue a warrant for his arrest, which one would assume would be a precursor to an extradition request.
— P Jerome

You seem to have a fairly bizarre idea of how law enforcement works in a society based on laws.

First, the FBI doesn't "issue" arrest warrants. The FBI "obtains" an arrest warrant from a judge based on the presentation of sufficient evidence to "warrant" an arrest (except in cases where the offender is actually taken in the act of committing the offense or is fleeing the scene of the offense). If law enforcement is allowed to issue its own arrest warrants, then you have a police state.

Second, the FBI does not need a warrant for any crimes that may have been committed by Bin Laden in connection with 9/11 because Bin Laden is already under indictment for his part in the African embassy bombings. This is sufficient to obtain his extradition should he be in custody somewhere.

Third, in order to obtain an arrest warrant in connection with 9/11 the FBI would have to reveal what evidence it has, at least to a judge (although the warrant application could be sealed), and one doesn't reveal one's evidence until one has to.

In sum, your entire paragraph is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

... the "Father of Reaganomics" has it exactly backwards.

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

"The War on Terror is a Hoax" by Paul Craig Roberts - ICH

"Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online.

Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem."

http://911blogger.com/node/19290

If the goal of al-Qaeda is to destroy the United States, then the last thing they would want to do is go around bumping off neocons. You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And the neocons have been laying golden goose eggs all over the place.

Still, Roberts' premise "The War on Terror is a Hoax" is valid. The neocons are a much graver threat to the United States than any terrorist. Given their head, the neocons would destroy the US as thoroughly as Mussolini destroyed Italy or Tojo destroyed Japan.

Alex Kozinski is a conservative judge

Perhaps they are counting on Prop H8 to invalidate the marriages and thus make their rulings moot.

Two federal judges on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have required payment of health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of lawyers employed by the U.S. government.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued the orders as hearing officers for circuit employee disputes, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). Reinhardt’s order declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, while Kozinski’s order didn’t reach the “hard question” of the statute’s constitutionality. Instead, he said ambiguous language in a federal health benefits act allowed him to order benefits, the story says. [emphasis added]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/two_federal_lawyers_win_benefits_for_same-sex_spouses_in_9th_circuit_orders/

Only in San Francisco?