Gates reiterated the accusation that elements within the Pakistani government knew about the location of Osama bin Laden and were keeping that information from the United States. Bin Laden was killed in a US raid earlier this month.

At the same time, Gates echoed comments by other officials, conceding that the US has absolutely no evidence to that effect and that it is “pure supposition on our part.” The repeated accusations, despite being based on “pure supposition” have done major damage to US-Pakistan ties, and have spawned calls from Congress to suspend all aid to Pakistan to punish them.

Gates, who attended the conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, also said that the US raid that killed bin Laden had “humiliated” the Pakistani government, and that they had “paid a price” for bin Laden’s presence. Mullen added that the US ability to attack Pakistan with impunity was “a humbling experience” for the Pakistani military.

What this means, of course, is that there will be no release of any video footage of the raid. Coupled with troops throwing the body into the ocean and the administration declining to release any photographs, there is a distinct paucity of evidence.

Of course al-Qaeda also confirmed the death in a statement, so this isn’t exactly in doubt itself. What is in doubt however is the official story of the killings, which the administration has repeatedly changed.

Questions about the circumstances of the killing might have been answered with the photographs, and certainly could have been answered with a video. The administration appears to have no interest in releasing any evidence, however, meaning the speculation over the incident will continue to grow.

The Taliban was also quick to issue a statement promising that bin Laden’s death would not change their policy at all. Though bin Laden was in Afghanistan as a guest of the Taliban government before the US invasion, the two factions have been seen as operating mostly independently in recent years, with the Taliban more concerned about reclaiming Afghanistan from the NATO-backed Karzai government.

Police across the West are on high alert over the prospect of a high profile revenge attack. Officials say they have no specific evidence of that, but there is growing “chatter” being collected by surveillance networks about massive numbers of small-scale attacks.

With officials exultant over having slain bin Laden, the sense is that retaliation is virtually inevitable. Likewise, those officials insist that the killing is not a major change to the disastrous policies of ever-escalating war, but rather a vindication of them. It seems whether the retaliation is major or not, little will change beyond the rhetoric.

It promised the death would be a “curse” upon the US and threatened not just continued attacks but demanded they hand over his body. The US reported that they hurled bin Laden’s body into the sea.

The group also urged a revolt in Pakistan over the unilateral nature of the attack. The Pakistani government is indeed already up in arms at US suggestions that they will continue this policy beyond the “special case” of bin Laden.

They also promised that the group would survive long after bin Laden’s death, saying “Sheik Osama didn’t build an organization to die when he dies.” The US confirmed it was “aware” of the statement.

US officials had long speculated that bin Laden was in Pakistan, but it came as a surprise that he was in a major city, not a remote tribal area. Senators have since called for the US to halt all aid to Pakistan.

The discontent over the situation flows both ways, however, with Pakistani officials angry that the US did not inform them about the raid until after the fact. This problem has been compounded by White House officials suggesting that bin Laden was not a special case, and that they may do it again.

Though all indication is that the US-Pakistani relationship is worsening, a number of analysts see a full split as unlikely, saying that the two sides really wouldn’t benefit from ending their tense relationship. Whether this is enough remains to be seen.

Attorney General Eric Holder insisted that the killing counted as “self defense” on a national level, and that there “would be a good basis” to kill him even if he tried to surrender to the troops, saying it is “lawful to target an enemy commander if the field.”

Which of course leaves open-ended whether the second-story bedroom of a sketchy house in Abbottabad counts as “the field.” Likewise, human rights officials doubted whether shooting an unarmed man in the face counted as “justice.”

Administration officials remain unrepentent on the killing, however, and the Obama Administration appears keen to use what happened in Pakistan as a precedent for other summary killings in the future. The argument that bin Laden was a special case, then, becomes less important to the overall question.

Obama argued that releasing the photo would amount to “spiking the football,”: while the White House later insisted that the photos could be incendiary and used as a “propaganda tool” by militant factions.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the photos were “too gruesome” and that they showed bin Laden was shot in the face. The questions about the al-Qaeda leader’s killing have increased with official confirmation that he was unarmed when shot.

A number of US politicians say they were shown the photo, and they were split over whether or not to release it to the public. How many of these claims were actually authentic remains to be seen, as Sen. Scott Brown (R – MA) later conceded that the photo he saw was actually one of the photoshopped fakes floating around the Internet.

Not how it was told to the American public on Sunday night and Monday morning, at least. With the public still basking in the glorious victory and officials presenting it as a vindication of eternal warfare, and promising more of the same, factoids began to creep out which blew the whole story apart.

We now know that bin Laden was entirely unarmed, his wife was shot in an entirely different room. There was no “human shield,” no Ak-47. Bin Laden’s palatial estate, presented as damning evidence of Pakistani culpability, turned out to be a moldy, unairconditioned house.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, incredibly, is still talking about a “highly volatile firefight,” but it now appears that the only armed people in the house were the Navy SEALs, and they were engaged in a “volatile firefight” with an unarmed, sickly man who they repeatedly shot. CIA director Leon Panetta speculated that bin Laden didn’t have any armed guards because he assumed his information network would alert him to possible threats.

Even this official story seems to be in doubt now, however, with bin Laden’s 12 year old daughter in the room at the time of his death. The report now is that bin Laden was successfully captured alive first and then summarily executed by the troops.

President Obama has vowed not to release the photos of bin Laden’s death. This is being spun as an effort to avoid a backlash, but might be an effort to manage the rate at which new evidence challenging old lies continues to come out.

Despite emphasizing this in their initial account, officials are now confirming that there was no firefight in the room in which bin Laden was killed, and that the al-Qaeda founder was entirely unarmed when he was shot in the head by Navy SEALs.

Officials had previously insisted the SEALs were instructed to attempt to take him alive if he “didn’t pose a threat.” Though officials claim he was resisting at the time of his killing, one wonders how much of a threat the aging, sickly terror leader could have posed to a team of soldiers when he was unarmed.

Other changes to the story include the “used his wife as a human shield” claim, which was first revised to a claim that he used some other, random woman as a human shield and eventually dropped in favor of the claim that the random, unarmed woman attacked the troops upon entering the room. It remains to be seen if other major changes will be forthcoming.

Mendenhall, whose previous tweets about the merits of the NFL Draft came under scrutiny, caused quite a stir when, citing the Christian principle “those who judge others, will also be judged themselves,” wondered whether it was appropriate to “celebrate” the death of anyone.

Mendenhall’s comments were quick to spawn a flurry of controversy and public condemnation. Steelers owner Art Rooney II termed Mendenhall’s lack of joy incomprehensible in an official response, saying that the “entire Steelers’ organization” is officially very proud of the killing.

Mendenhall’s comment was a paraphrase of Matthew 7:1, a part of the biblical Sermon on the Mount termed the “discourse on judgementalism.” Though the sermon is considered the canonical word of God throughout Christendom, there is a considerable debate among Christians today over whether there is an implied Osama Exemption within the sermon that permits Christians to celebrate his slaying.