Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

[JaredJames]

Would we have done the same if we found out Bin Laden was in a villa in France?

Well it's not like they'd put up a fight...

 

[drankin]

I think the general point from Cristo is:

The British imposed their rule over various countries.

Colonialists didn't like it. They revolted and formed America.

America is now imposing it's rule on other countries how it sees fit.

Statements such as the following support that and show people in America think it's right (the 'we do what we like' attitude):



(And then continue to bang on about how they beat the British out of America because they didn't want to be subject to their rule... )

I see the point but it doesn't apply in our attack on OBL. I think most Americans would agree that we spend too much in the affairs in other countries. But, we aren't making them part of the US and imposing taxes or "ruling" them. If anything, we're giving them too much money and expecting them to actually do something productive with it. The parallel isn't there.

 

[turbo]

Trying to bring this back on track. Why don't we focus on the actual circumstances. Pakistan is supposed to be our ally in getting rid of terrorists. We do have special ops troops there, we recently took out a top level Al-Qaida operative in Pakistan with a drone. What is our agreement with Pakistan?

It is probably a lot more complex than our diplomats can let on. If our intelligence and diplomatic communities were confident of the discretion and honesty of their Pakistani counterparts, wouldn't they have let our "ally" in on the intelligence and the actual operation?

In addition, the Pakistani leadership may agree to look the other way, to provide a cover of credible deniability, because the US is so unpopular in their country. We will probably never know the details.

 

[Hurkyl]

But you didn't agree with British laws. Now you're doing the same thing to the rest of the world as Britain did to you. That's not hypocritical?

Nope. It would only be hypocritical if Russ condemned Britain for doing so. (This post makes no comment on the accuracy of your summary of Russ's statement)

(Well, there's another technicality -- it's not hypocritical if both Britain and America are being held to some particular standard, and when Britian did the thing it violated that standard but when America did the thing it did not violate the standard)

 

[Evo]

It is probably a lot more complex than our diplomats can let on. If our intelligence and diplomatic communities were confident of the discretion and honesty of their Pakistani counterparts, wouldn't they have let our "ally" in on the intelligence and the actual operation?

In addition, the Pakistani leadership may agree to look the other way, to provide a cover of credible deniability, because the US is so unpopular in their country. We will probably never know the details.

Yes, to think it's cut and dried with Pakistan involved and the situation there, it will be a long time before we truly know the details.

 

[AlephZero]

It would kinda defeat the purpose of a government by and for the people of the US if we were subject to foreign laws...and by the way, that has nothing whatsoever to do with that movie!

Does the US recognize the concept of "international law"? It would seem hypocritical for the US to remain a member of the the UN Security Council or to continue taking part in the World Trade Organization if it doesn't.

 

[drankin]

Does the US recognize the concept of "international law"? It would seem hypocritical for the US to remain a member of the the UN Security Council or to continue taking part in the World Trade Organization if it doesn't.

What particular international law are you referring to?

 

[Vanadium 50]

We have some "pundits" in the US saying that the killing was illegal, too. Not surprisingly, such claims have been made on FOX. If this "illegal" raid had been carried out under "W", they would have been over the Moon with joy. IMO, if Obama had rescued a cute puppy from a burning building, the FOX loons would find a way to slam him for that. Please consider the sources.

You mean arch-conservatives like Michael Moore reported on by radical right websites like the Huffington Post? Those sources?

I think this is futile to discuss. One needs the facts to make a judgment, and at the moment, all we know is that at least N-1 of the N reported stories of what happened are false. Second, what is legal and what is not is ultimately determined by a court of law, and I cannot see anyone with standing initiating a legal action. If Anwat Al-Awlaki's (a US citizen selected for "targeted killing") father doesn't have standing, who does?

 

[Proton Soup]

Does the US recognize the concept of "international law"? It would seem hypocritical for the US to remain a member of the the UN Security Council or to continue taking part in the World Trade Organization if it doesn't.

being on the security council means that you have a veto and aren't accountable.

 

[turbo]

You mean arch-conservatives like Michael Moore reported on by radical right websites like the Huffington Post? Those sources?

It is quite disingenuous to suggest that people on opposite ends of the political spectrum cannot come to a common conclusion regarding a political situation. FOX tries to create the impression that all other media sources are liberal, and only they are the only purveyors of the truth. That's a false dichotomy that no rational person should buy.

The perception (blind belief, if you wish) that the major TV networks (all owned by large corporations, BTW) all conspire to present progressive/liberal views on their news programs is illogical on the face of it. I think we all know better.

 

[Drakkith]

Lets get this straight. The US military taking down a terrorist target inside another country is NOTHING like a sovereign country imposing its own laws against its own citizens. So stop with the comparisons. We aren't imposing our laws on Pakistan, at worst we simply violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid. Not the same.

The legality of Osama Bin Laden being killed is still questionable under US and other laws. Unfortunently we will have to wait and hope the real story is released before we can make any sense of this. Was he armed at the time? Put up any resistance? Was the team supposed to kill him, or try to take him into custody? ETC.

Either way, I for one will NOT be shedding any tears over the death of this man.

 

[Al68]

Historically, I think every news source has had some small amount of bias, but in recent times it has exploded. And now liberals have MSNBC and conservatives have FOX and the biases are a lot more clear.

That's a very important distinction, and you're exactly right: the biases are a lot more clear. Hannity, etc do not hide their biases. This is a huge contrast to the insidious hidden bias of the past with the big three networks. Many people who watched Dan Rather in his heyday had no idea whatsoever that they were hearing only one side of the story being accurately represented, while the other side was grotesquely misrepresented, either purposely or due to an honest lack of comprehension by journalists.

But, as I've mentioned before, whenever I heard Dan Rather 20 years ago, I fantasized about how he would look with a grid of little circles on his forehead from the brick I wanted to throw through my TV set.

 

[WhoWee]

Lets get this straight. The US military taking down a terrorist target inside another country is NOTHING like a sovereign country imposing its own laws against its own citizens. So stop with the comparisons. We aren't imposing our laws on Pakistan, at worst we simply violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid. Not the same.

The legality of Osama Bin Laden being killed is still questionable under US and other laws. Unfortunently we will have to wait and hope the real story is released before we can make any sense of this. Was he armed at the time? Put up any resistance? Was the team supposed to kill him, or try to take him into custody? ETC.

Either way, I for one will NOT be shedding any tears over the death of this man.

Has President Obama invited this type of scrutiny and second guessing onto himself by releasing? Why does he continue to release information about the operation?

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_operation

I've seen people drive 66 mph in a 65 mph zone. That is against the law, but the chances of getting caught are slim. Maybe, or maybe not, Obama chose to take the risk of not getting caught (now where again is that court house which prosecutes US war presidents?)

 

[Amp1]

Whowee,

Everyone from journalist to voyeurists wants to know the story. Obama was on 60 minutes Mother's Day giving as detailed and complete a summery as possible an yet there will still be those claiming he didn't tell enough.

 

[amwest]

We have some "pundits" in the US saying that the killing was illegal, too. Not surprisingly, such claims have been made on FOX. If this "illegal" raid had been carried out under "W", they would have been over the Moon with joy. IMO, if Obama had rescued a cute puppy from a burning building, the FOX loons would find a way to slam him for that. Please consider the sources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/shep-smith-bin-laden-illegal_n_857356.html

I don't know what was more painful, reading the comments or the article! I do think it is a relivent question even though just about every media outlet smears anyone that asks it. watch anyone else on Fox and you will get hellfire sermons about how we can do anything we want to militarily. Plus all the other fake media sources seem to get irritated when this question is asked.

 

[amwest]

But this is a totally hypocritical point of view for an American to take. Your country formed because you were pissed off with a bigger, stronger nation forcing its laws upon you. Now you are doing the same, claiming that US law holds outside of US territory.

SHUT UP! Some one order a an assin...Stratigic strike against Cristo!

you can't let my fellow Americans know about their history! it will ruin the whole debate!

 

[amwest]

I think the real question is did we break a treaty with Pakistan? in that sense we probably did violate US law.

Another question to ask, did we make the right choice? if we could have captured UBL should we have. Showing that our justice system is above petty murder. this is the argument being put forth by a very few shunned journalists.

 

[Al68]

Another question to ask, did we make the right choice? if we could have captured UBL should we have. Showing that our justice system is above petty murder. this is the argument being put forth by a very few shunned journalists.

They should be shunned, if they think our justice system had any involvement, or if they think killing UBL was petty.

 

[amwest]

So we should be shunned for openly questioning what the boundries of our values are and if we may have steped over them in our anger and outrage? I'm not questioning if our outrage was justified, just the notion that we cannot question our own actions. The idea that we can't take a look at ourselves in the mirror during hard times and ask if we could have done something different is horrindious to me. We should always strive to be more noble not just stronger.

 

[Al68]

So we should be shunned for openly questioning what the boundries of our values are and if we may have steped over them in our anger and outrage?

Nope. That's very different from what I said those journalists should be shunned for.

 

[amwest]

Nope. That's very different from what I said those journalists should be shunned for.

I guess i didn't understand what you are saying the journalists should be shunned for then. I know I'm not alsways clear about what or how i state things as well, which is why i normally don't post in blogs. Here, the people so far seem to be much more constructive in their critizisms.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I think the real question is did we break a treaty with Pakistan? in that sense we probably did violate US law.

Another question to ask, did we make the right choice? if we could have captured UBL should we have. Showing that our justice system is above petty murder. this is the argument being put forth by a very few shunned journalists.

If we broke the treaty with Pakistan, they also broke it by housing the terrorist a couple blocks from a major military training facility.

Maybe they had direct orders to kill, but maybe those orders assumed he'd be armed?

Also, do we try OBL here in America where he never set foot in before, wasn't here where he committed the crime, or do we try him in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (his home country), or do we try him in Afghanistan? Or, even still, do we try him in the world court for crimes against humanity/etc/etc.

Do we try him in all the countries? What if he gets the death sentence in one or two or three and only life in prison in the others?

Given the choice I would make the same decision the SEALs did and just kill him.

 

[vertices]

Lets get this straight. The US military taking down a terrorist target inside another country is NOTHING like a sovereign country imposing its own laws against its own citizens. So stop with the comparisons. We aren't imposing our laws on Pakistan, at worst we simply violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid. Not the same.

We only went and "violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid". No biggie. Can you see nothing wrong with this?

The legality of Osama Bin Laden being killed is still questionable under US and other laws. Unfortunently we will have to wait and hope the real story is released before we can make any sense of this. Was he armed at the time? Put up any resistance? Was the team supposed to kill him, or try to take him into custody? ETC.

Either way, I for one will NOT be shedding any tears over the death of this man.

Well it turns out the SEALS faced minimal resistance from OBL - they could have taken him alive. In civilised countries we afford everyone (even sick monsters like child rapists) due process - this is such an elementary principle.

A country that takes part in Extra-judicial Assassination, which let's face it, is on par with absolutely heinous things like "enhanced interrogation" (aka state sanctioned torture) and extraordinary rendition (state sanctioned abduction), should have the decency never to talk about things like human rights, democracy, freedom and other such highfalutin ideals.

Unfortunately Obama has stooped to the level of Al Qaeda by killing OBL, and this to me is a far more pertinent issue...

 

[WhoWee]

We only went and "violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid". No biggie. Can you see nothing wrong with this?



Well it turns out the SEALS faced minimal resistance from OBL - they could have taken him alive. In civilised countries we afford everyone (even sick monsters like child rapists) due process - this is such an elementary principle.

A country that takes part in Extra-judicial Assassination, which let's face it, is on par with absolutely heinous things like "enhanced interrogation" (aka state sanctioned torture) and extraordinary rendition (state sanctioned abduction), should have the decency never to talk about things like human rights, democracy, freedom and other such highfalutin ideals.

Unfortunately Obama has stooped to the level of Al Qaeda by killing OBL, and this to me is a far more pertinent issue...

Didn't THIS animal declare war on the US?

 

[Ryumast3r]

I think one thing that a lot of people fail to see is that he did declare war on the United States. He's not just a mass-murderer or whatever, he is actually an enemy combatant. I haven't heard any reports saying he openly surrendered yet or waved a white flag, so, under rules of engagement in a war, perfectly fine to shoot him.

 

[turbo]

If this killing had happen a couple of years ago, W and Shooter would have been chest-thumping and high-fiving. US citizens would be glad that OBL was gone, and we would be largely spared the prattling about whether the killing was legal.

If one has followed the news in the last couple of weeks, it would be evident that Musharraf had agreed with the US government years ago that if we had actionable intelligence on bin Laden's location in Pakistan, we could take him out, and then the Pakistani government would protest the raid as a violation of their sovereignty as a means of providing credible deniability to the populace. Things have worked out exactly according to that plan.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/09/Report-US-Pakistan-had-bin-Laden-deal/UPI-29781304970130/

 

[amwest]

To the question of who/where to try UBL it could have been done the same way NAZI war criminals were tried, I'm wandering if this might not have been a better route to try and take. Pure speculation, i was on a CQB team for 2 years, and am NOT questioning the SEALs. Dynamic entry is a ***** where you usally expect to take 40% or more casulties.

 

[WhoWee]

To the question of who/where to try UBL it could have been done the same way NAZI war criminals were tried, I'm wandering if this might not have been a better route to try and take. Pure speculation, i was on a CQB team for 2 years, and am NOT questioning the SEALs. Dynamic entry is a ***** where you usally expect to take 40% or more casulties.

Can you imagine the SEAL's reading Bin Laden his Miranda Rights, then on board the ship interrogators following the Army field manual, then possibly Attorney General Holder questioning him with an ACLU lawyer present - then the whole trial process with Bin Laden testifying in his own defense? I'm really glad he's dead.

 

[amwest]

Can you imagine the SEAL's reading Bin Laden his Miranda Rights, then on board the ship interrogators following the Army field manual, then possibly Attorney General Holder questioning him with an ACLU lawyer present - then the whole trial process with Bin Laden testifying in his own defense? I'm really glad he's dead.

we did manage to do it during WW2 many times. Shoot we only exiled the emperor of Japan for starting the pacific war! I do admit the trial would have been a circius. The only aspect of the whole idea that i was originaly thinking about was, would we be more respected geo-politicly by taking the legal route as opposed to the military route. Yes I'm sure we're feared around the world but how respected are we?

 

[WhoWee]

we did manage to do it during WW2 many times. Shoot we only exiled the emperor of Japan for starting the pacific war! I do admit the trial would have been a circius. The only aspect of the whole idea that i was originaly thinking about was, would we be more respected geo-politicly by taking the legal route as opposed to the military route. Yes I'm sure we're feared around the world but how respected are we?

I think your concern should be redirected to Pakistan. The people in Pakistan that knew where he was hiding are responsible for his death. They could've had him arrested - correct?

 

[redpenguin]

When you have a 'dead or alive' bounty on your head... an assassination is not entirely out of the question.

EDIT: Looking at the FBI list.. it just says information leading to an arrest. I think very few people would have sympathy for killing a suspected terrorist as high of a profile as bin laden.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Mr. Bin Laden, did you or did you not direct the attack on the World Trade Centers?

one of three responses:

"Yes I did you f***ing idiot! Have you been living under a rock all these years? Of course I f***ing did it!"

or

"No sir I didn't, and you'll find I have an alibi. I was at a dinner party in my mansion at the time."

or my personal favorite:

*Breaks out into song* *Lawyer speaks up for him: "My client would like to plea insanity."*

 

[BobG]

If we broke the treaty with Pakistan, they also broke it by housing the terrorist a couple blocks from a major military training facility.

Maybe they had direct orders to kill, but maybe those orders assumed he'd be armed?

Also, do we try OBL here in America where he never set foot in before, wasn't here where he committed the crime, or do we try him in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (his home country), or do we try him in Afghanistan? Or, even still, do we try him in the world court for crimes against humanity/etc/etc.

Do we try him in all the countries? What if he gets the death sentence in one or two or three and only life in prison in the others?

Given the choice I would make the same decision the SEALs did and just kill him.

We only went and "violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid". No biggie. Can you see nothing wrong with this?



Well it turns out the SEALS faced minimal resistance from OBL - they could have taken him alive. In civilised countries we afford everyone (even sick monsters like child rapists) due process - this is such an elementary principle.

A country that takes part in Extra-judicial Assassination, which let's face it, is on par with absolutely heinous things like "enhanced interrogation" (aka state sanctioned torture) and extraordinary rendition (state sanctioned abduction), should have the decency never to talk about things like human rights, democracy, freedom and other such highfalutin ideals.

Unfortunately Obama has stooped to the level of Al Qaeda by killing OBL, and this to me is a far more pertinent issue...

If we'd captured him, a trial would have definitely been problematic, so I think there was definitely a preference to kill him rather than capture him.

I think that approach was set up from the very beginning by calling this a "War on Terror" instead of treating it as trying to apprehend a criminal (international laws about killing a commander in the field are very different than the laws for apprehending an unarmed criminal). And it was equally important to consider bin Laden a field commander vs a government official (not to mention that bin Laden had no government to be an official of), so the assassination definition would fit even worse than the international criminal definition would.

I think one could validly raise questions over how bin Laden could be considered a field commander, yet captured detainees treated as unlawful combatants or criminals instead of POWs. There are some inconsistencies in how we've handled the whole issue of al-Qaeda (not to mention in how we've handled those that were fighting for some other reason, such as against what they perceived to be an invading force, etc.).

As more details slowly come out (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/eveningnews/main20062410.shtml), it appears pretty consistent with the idea that bin Laden was to be considered an enemy field commander and shot the same as any other enemy combatant unless he surrendered. The way things played out, he didn't have much time to surrender. SEALS shot at him on a stairway landing outside his bedroom as soon as they saw him, he retreated back inside his room, only to have the SEALS come bursting into shoot him seconds later. I doubt bin Laden had much time to do much thinking about whether to surrender or shoot it out.

I think violating the sovereignty of Pakistan by conducting a military raid in their country definitely could be considered an act of war against Pakistan, just as our routine drone raids against al-Qaeda in Pakistan could be. For that matter, Turkey's raids on Kurds in Northern Iraq could have been considered an act of war against Iraq, and during a time when the US was still responsible for Iraq's security and the security of its borders. They're a bit of a grey area in that they're not an actual invasion of the violated country, nor are they an attack against that nation's general populace or forces (so they're not exactly like Japan bombing US Navy ships at Pearl Harbor).

I think the violated country would be within rights to consider it an act of war. Doesn't mean it's always in their best interest to do so. It's not in Pakistan's best interest to decide the US raid was an act of war since US raids against al-Qaeda aren't nearly as serious a threat to Pakistan as India is and it would be very counter productive to lose the military aid the US has been giving Pakistan. Likewise, it wasn't in the US interest to consider Turkey's bombing of Kurds in Iraq an act of war because, at that time, we had enough trouble maintaining peace between Sunnis and different factions of Shiites without having a border war on top of everything else.

Personally, I think this is what we should have been pushing towards all along. When Musharraf proclaimed that Pakistan was as committed to fighting terrorism as the US, Europe, and most of the rest of the world, we should have been holding his feet to fire, pressuring him to provide some tangible results, or to step out of the way and let us pursue al-Qaeda wherever that path led (in fact, that's the same choice we offered the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is why Musharraf was so eager to be an ally in the war against terror).

We had too many years of being strung along by an unwilling "ally" that always spent the majority of the money we sent them on fortifying the Pakistan-India border and paying mere lip service to the idea of pursuing al-Qaeda operatives within their borders. I think the change in our attitude toward Pakistan has been very positive with the bin Laden raid being just one of the positive results.

 

[russ_watters]

Bob, great post and I agree with almost everything except the last paragraph. Though they strung us along and continue to do so, I don't think we've had a change in attitude. The attitude has always been: 'Thanks for your help, but if we see something in your country that needs to be attacked, we're not going to ask permission to go after it.' We've been 'violating Pakistan's sovereignty' this way for years. Here's an example from 2008 and the wiki on the subject says we've been doing it at least as far back as 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7611287.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan