Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

To me the only issue is whether OBL surrendered to the SEAL team or not. The fact that seems to get lost in the lawfare is that the US and Al Qaeda are at war.

It´s highly debatable whether an organized State can wage war* against such an immaterial organization as Al-Qaeda.


* - a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties within a nation; todays asymmetric conflicts represents a portentous challenge to this definition.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

It´s highly debatable whether an organized State can wage war* against such an immaterial organization as Al-Qaeda.


* - a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties within a nation; todays asymmetric conflicts represents a portentous challenge to this definition.

AQ is immaterial? I'd say the bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, as well as AQ/AQI's continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are materially significant, wouldn't you?

Challenge to the definition is putting it lightly. Globalization and 5th generation warfare have permanently changed the way we think about armed conflict.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

AQ is immaterial? I'd say the bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, as well as AQ/AQI's continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are materially significant, wouldn't you?

AQ is immaterial as an organization. It is now, at best, an assortment of movements that have little connection with each other or, at worst, "a loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". How can war be waged against such a threat? (Rhetoric question). Is AQ involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course! Is it the big player in said countries? Definitely not.

I´m not saying AQ and related groups/movements shouldn´t be fought relentlessly, but it´s not war, at least not war as we know it.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

...... at least not war as we know it.

Its all matter of definition.
That's why people get confused so much and international law has no idea how to deal with it since well....its not designed to deal with such situations.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by MH

Its all matter of definition.
That's why people get confused so much and international law has no idea how to deal with it since well....its not designed to deal with such situations.

Yep, it´s like authorial rights after internet, something is wrong, we just can´t agree what...

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

AQ is immaterial as an organization. It is now, at best, an assortment of movements that have little connection with each other or, at worst, "a loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". How can war be waged against such a threat? (Rhetoric question). Is AQ involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course! Is it the big player in said countries? Definitely not.

I´m not saying AQ and related groups/movements shouldn´t be fought relentlessly, but it´s not war, at least not war as we know it.

The only reason AQ is in shambles is because of the war effort being mostly successful. The question doesn't make sense; a state brought to its knees by warfare is in the same position. War can be made against such an organization just as war can be waged against a state approaching defeat.