News Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lapidus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The legality of killing Osama bin Laden remains a contentious issue, with some arguing that it was unlawful and that he should have been captured and tried. The debate centers on whether he was armed during the raid and the implications of international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit killing unarmed individuals. Proponents of the action argue that bin Laden was a legitimate military target due to his leadership of a terrorist organization, while critics question the legality of conducting such operations in a sovereign state. The discussion also touches on the broader context of U.S. policies on targeted killings, which have evolved since the 1990s and were intensified under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Ultimately, the discourse highlights the complexities of legal interpretations in counterterrorism operations.
Lapidus
Messages
344
Reaction score
12
Here in Europe some people say killing Osama was not legal. The US should have taken him into custody and bring him to court.

Suppose it was really a kill mission. Would that be legal?

(My reaction was who cares, he was a mass murderer. But people here say there are still laws, you can't execute him just like that.)

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He was armed and was not agreeing to the Navy Seals demands. If they didn't shoot him, Osama might have shot a Navy seal.
 
Legendofdeep said:
He was armed and was not agreeing to the Navy Seals demands. If they didn't shoot him, Osama might have shot a Navy seal.

There are reports that he actually was not armed. A lot of conflicting reports are starting to emerge.
 
Lapidus said:
Here in Europe some people say killing Osama was not legal. The US should have taken him into custody and bring him to court.

Suppose it was really a kill mission. Would that be legal?

(My reaction was who cares, he was a mass murderer. But people here say there are still laws, you can't execute him just like that.)

thanks

Maybe it wasn't entirely "legal" by international standards. I don't know what law(s) specifically that the US would be bound to regarding this. If anyone can point to a documented law that the US has agreed to abide by it would be interesting to read.
 
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
 
Of course it was legal.
Because he was beyond the pale of law, due to his own actions.

He was a classic example of "hostis humani generis".
 
Yes, it's legal according to our law.

What the Presdient did is quite legal.

However, following the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and on the basis of a (secret) favorable legal opinion, President Bill Clinton issued a presidential finding (equivalent to an executive order) authorizing the use of lethal force in self-defense against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter, seventy-five Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched at a site in Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden was expected to attend a summit meeting. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, President George Bush reportedly made another finding that broadened the class of potential targets beyond the top leaders of Al-Qaeda, and also beyond the boundaries of Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered Special Operations units to prepare a plan for “hunter killer teams,” with the purpose of killing, not capturing, terrorist suspects. Using the war paradigm for counterterrorism enabled government lawyers to distinguish lethal attacks on terrorists from prohibited assassinations and justify them as lawful battlefield operations against enemy combatants

President Barack Obama’s administration has not changed the policy on targeted killings; in fact, it ordered a “dramatic increase” in the drone-launched missile strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban members in Pakistan. According to commentators, there were more such strikes in the first year of Obama’s administration than in the last three years of the Bush administration. CIA operatives have reportedly been involved in targeted killing operations in Yemen and Somalia as well, although in Yemen the operations are carried out by Yemeni forces, with the CIA assisting in planning, munitions supply, and tactical guidance. Obama has also left intact the authority granted by his predecessor to the CIA and the military to kill American citizens abroad, if they are involved in terrorism against the United States.

http://harvardnsj.com/2010/06/law-and-policy-of-targeted-killing/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's meant by legal? International law? Pakistani law? U.S. law?
 
gb7nash said:
What's meant by legal? International law? Pakistani law? U.S. law?
Try researching it. There is a lot about "Targeted killing in Internationl law".
 
  • #10
Lapidus said:
Here in Europe some people say killing Osama was not legal. The US should have taken him into custody and bring him to court.

Suppose it was really a kill mission. Would that be legal?

(My reaction was who cares, he was a mass murderer. But people here say there are still laws, you can't execute him just like that.)

thanks
What American police force has jurisdiction to arrest a Saudi in Pakistan?

In any case, regardless of whether he had a gun, he was the leader of a paramilitary terorist organization. Clearly a military target. Now where it does get sticky is with the Geneva conventions which forbid soldiers from killing people who are unarmed. That's a little sticky to me, though, because we could have killed him even easier (and safer) by just dropping a big bomb on the compound.
 
  • #11
Given that the compound was filled with armed persons who fired during the raid, would it matter that bin laden was unarmed?
 
  • #12
The fact that he was killed does not mean his killing was against any international law, rule of engagement, or otherwise that the US agreed to.

No one here, on FOX, on Huffington, or anywhere else can conclude exactly what happened, even if they claim they can.
 
  • #13
turbo-1 said:
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

You can't be serious about the Shep Smith question (begins at about 3:10 on your link and begins with distortion - btw)? He didn't label anything as being "illegal" and he didn't pronounce anything a "fact" - just some word twisting by Huffington in it's description. You need to consider your sources - IMO.
 
  • #14
Huffington Post reporting about Fox News. Might as well read an article about "fine italian dining" on dominospizza.com, written by the owner of McDonalds.
 
  • #15
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor just about as instantaneous as you can get we were at war = OBL . Two witnesses (?) Two bombs, footprints (?) sorry ... digressing ... thinking about ... lines from the movie "The Omen"
 
  • #16
Evo said:
Yes, it's legal according to our law.

What the Presdient did is quite legal.
Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
.. Now where it does get sticky is with the Geneva conventions which forbid soldiers from killing people who are unarmed.

It seems unlikely that the Geneva conventions apply, which is an agreement between "high contracting parties", which are is defined as parties to any international agreement which have both signed and ratified it. Al Qaeda is probably not a high contracting party. So obviously the normal international laws and agreements would prevail here. And I'm not sure about the legimacy of infringing the territory of a sovereign state to conduct violent acts. Maybe some diplomacy has ironed out some possible wrinkles preemtively.

But even if one can justify the lethal action against a terrorist, what about the other victims?

Al68 said:
Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.

Does it really work that way? Isn't the keyword 'mutual' here? Suppose that some hypothetical local tyrant in a conflict area, that had been subject to an American invasion, conducted an insurgical action like that to liquidate the president, who is seen as the symbol of all evil? So if heads of states were to ignore laws of other sovereign states, what would be the result for humanity on a global scale?
 
  • #18
Al68 said:
Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.

You realize how arrogant this sounds, right? I'm sure I've heard something like this before...

team-america-photo.jpg
 
  • #19
KingNothing said:
Huffington Post reporting about Fox News. Might as well read an article about "fine italian dining" on dominospizza.com, written by the owner of McDonalds.
Well, did you follow the links? I suspect not.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105020016

The spinning and twisting at FOX ("violation of the constitution" for instance) is designed to sway the weak-minded with no knowledge of our laws and/or those with an idealogical bent to reject the actions of our President. I wish William F. Buckley Jr. was alive to provide some honest commentary from the right.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
cristo said:
You realize how arrogant this sounds, right? I'm sure I've heard something like this before...

Sure, it sounds "arrogant". But it is what it is. We would expect the same from the UK or any other country under the same circumstances.
 
  • #21
drankin said:
Sure, it sounds "arrogant". But it is what it is. We would expect the same from the UK or any other country under the same circumstances.
Targeted killing is now also legally used by the UK.

Melzer discusses how perceptions shifted in the United Kingdom after the September 11 attacks, towards a viewpoint where targeted killings were supported by the government and within law enforcement. The author argues that Metropolitan Police officially endorsed a "shoot to kill" strategy directly after the terrorism occurred in the United States. Melzer finds it odd that the UK made this change to its policy, due to the fact that targeted killing was never previously a legitimate police strategy. Prior to the September 11 attacks, law enforcement officers in the UK that utilized targeted killing methodology were repeatedly held to criminal proceedings. Melzer characterizes the September 11 attacks as a turning point by which state-endorsed targeted killings became legitimized in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_Killing_in_International_Law#Contents
 
Last edited:
  • #22
turbo-1 said:
The spinning and twisting at FOX ("violation of the constitution" for instance) is designed to sway the weak-minded with no knowledge of our laws and/or those with an idealogical bent to reject the actions of our President. I wish William F. Buckley Jr. was alive to provide some honest commentary from the right.
If you think there's no room for Fox News after decades of the big three spouting socialist propaganda, "spinning and twisting" everything, that's fine. But many of us were frustrated for decades by the left wing monopoly on news.

Say what you want about Fox News, at least they don't have a monopoly, and are in fact in the minority. The days of the left dominating every news source are over, permanently. Live with it. People now have at least some access to both sides of the issues, even if some are now too brainwashed or stupid to comprehend one side, or don't bother listening to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Al68 said:
Say what you want about Fox News

They are a disgrace to journalism. I think they have an ethical obligation to, at the very least, label it as a conservative news source.

Al68 said:
The days of the left dominating every news source are over, permanently.

Perhaps a bit of a hyperbole? 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.

The sad part is that journalistic integrity is being thrown out the window, and it's so much easier for the common person to just get news that doesn't make them question any of their beliefs. News is becoming less of an educational tool, and more of a "tell me what to believe" tool.
 
  • #24
cristo said:
You realize how arrogant this sounds, right? I'm sure I've heard something like this before...

team-america-photo.jpg
Its not arrogant, it's a practical necessity and a reality. The US does not belong to a body such as the EU and any treaty has to be ratified: like it or not, we are subject only to the international laws we say we're subject to. 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!
 
Last edited:
  • #25
KingNothing said:
They are a disgrace to journalism. I think they have an ethical obligation to, at the very least, label it as a conservative news...
Do all news sources have such an obligation or just Fox?
 
  • #26
Andre said:
It seems unlikely that the Geneva conventions apply, which is an agreement between "high contracting parties", which are is defined as parties to any international agreement which have both signed and ratified it. Al Qaeda is probably not a high contracting party. So obviously the normal international laws and agreements would prevail here.
Good point.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
Do all news sources have such an obligation or just Fox?

Well, he said "say what you want about FOX", so I did.
 
  • #28
Evo said:
Targeted killing is now also legally used by the UK.

There's a huge difference between the met issuing a shoot to kill order in their own jurisdiction and performing an assassination in a third country.
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
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!

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.
 
  • #30
cristo said:
There's a huge difference between the met issuing a shoot to kill order in their own jurisdiction and performing an assassination in a third country.

What do you think was the proper course of action for President Obama, the US Intelligence Services and the US Military with regards to confronting the most wanted terrorist in the world?
 
  • #31
cristo said:
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.
Erm, how is it hypocritical? It looks to me like you are arguing a strawman -- I never saw Russ claim, for example, that Britain's laws obligated it to obey colonial laws and degrees.
 
  • #32
Hurkyl said:
Erm, how is it hypocritical? It looks to me like you are arguing a strawman -- I never saw Russ claim, for example, that Britain's laws obligated it to obey colonial laws and degrees.

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?
 
  • #33
cristo said:
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?

Exactly, how are we doing this? I don't see the analogy.
 
  • #34
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):
Al68 said:
Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.
russ_watters said:
Its not arrogant, it's a practical necessity and a reality. The US does not belong to a body such as the EU and any treaty has to be ratified: like it or not, we are subject only to the international laws we say we're subject to. 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!

(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... :rolleyes:)
 
  • #35
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?
 
  • #36
Evo said:
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... :rolleyes:
 
  • #37
JaredJames said:
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... :rolleyes:)

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.
 
  • #38
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #39
cristo said:
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)
 
  • #40
turbo-1 said:
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.
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #42
AlephZero said:
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?
 
  • #43
turbo-1 said:
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?
 
  • #44
AlephZero said:
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.
 
  • #45
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
KingNothing said:
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. :biggrin:
 
  • #48
Drakkith said:
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?
 
  • #49
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?)
 
  • #50
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
10K
Replies
30
Views
6K
Replies
384
Views
41K
Replies
21
Views
10K
Replies
193
Views
23K
Back
Top