Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[Jaguar]

It´s somewhat similar to what Israel did to Eichmann isn´t it?

[Growler]

The notable reason for the OBL hit is this: There weren't too many nations that were going to sit down and have a chat with the man; AQ and derivatives were responsible for mayhem and murder on a mass scale around the world. The Western allies were uniform (publicly at least) on the stand against OBL.

Comparing Castro with the US is apples to oranges. One nation's sanctioning of a guy by itself is not the same as unilateral support from the global community.

Is it right? Each will interpret the morality of the action their own way. But the weight of world opinion about OBL supported the actions taken, be it by SEALs, SAS, or any other combat team.

[Skybird]

The police slamming in the door and shooting a suspect in his flat when he grabs for a weapon - legal or not? I promise you, by laws of all your countries you guys live in: absolutely legal.

WWII, the Allies waged war against a sovereign nation and finally enforced entry onto its territory. Isn'T this a violation of the sovereignity of said country that was minding just its own busioness and quarells with its immediate neighbours?

And bombing the cities of Dreseden an Ham,burg, was that really necessary? The russians cracking down on the 6th army in Stalingrad - why haven'T they just arrested them instead of shooting and killing them? If you were in the Germans' place - surrounded from all sides, constantly being shot at, and cut off all supplies, wouldn'T have you fought back then, too? No wonder that the Germans shot back at the Russians, what did the Russians expect when slamming in the door like they tried? The Russians wanted too much, really.

You cannot pay back violence for violence, by that you are not any better than the claimed aggressor is himself. Also, who is the aggressor really is a question of own position, I would say. One has to see things in relation a bit.

And then, has anyone ever thought what it meant for the soul and mind of the Uberfather of a whole nation, Adolf Hitler, to be bullied and forced to live under the earth? When nobody likes you and evades you, would you be able to nevertheless send a constant smile out into the world? For how long? Imagine you would need to live like he did in the end, in a dark ugly hole in the earth, wouldn't you say it was inhumane a treatement that he received? Obviously it left scars in the soul of this man, it made him committing suicide. Obviously an unbearable ammount of pressure has been brought upon him. One is wondering if this was really necessary. In the end, he still was a human being. By making him committing suicide, one has created a mártyr how encourag es people until today to adopt his teaching and live by his example. If Hitler would have been caught alive and brought to social therapy in a resocialisation program, we would not need to worry about Neonazis today.

Keep the ball low, guys. Tryx to feel a little bit more of humane understanding for the other guy. It would make the world a better place if you do. Violence never has solved anything.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Growler

Is it right? Each will interpret the morality of the action their own way. But the weight of world opinion about OBL supported the actions taken, be it by SEALs, SAS, or any other combat team.

Based in what a friend posted long time ago I guess that, morally speaking, the murder of human beings is wrong in almost every single case. But the violence that arises with terrorism conventionalizes this state of affairs and, morally relativistic as it sounds, there is no longer a clear-cut black and white state of moral right and wrong. There is merely the rationally, logically justifiable. One may consider OBL´s murder illegal or even immoral. It was also perfectly legitimate.

[Skybird]

Deutsche Oberlehrer und der erhobene Zeigefinger deutscher Riesenzwerge

[Betonov]

I say Illegal, but ultimately neccesary.

When I heard he was dead, I made a grin the size of that cat from Alice in Wonderland. It's a jungle out there, and you cant talk your way out of a hungry panthers claws.
The rule of law is only as effective, as long as both sides obey it. The US goverment would never assasinate a Slovenian citizen, because Slovenia obeys international laws. OBL didn't. He abused them

[MH]

They should had asked Pakistani for extradition.

[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. All this talk about arrest and trial misses that point. In war, you have no obligation to arrest your enemy and bring him to court; you're expected simply to destroy him... unless, he surrenders. In that case he becomes a prisoner and is generally protected from legal proceedings, other than those for violation of the law of war.

I don't think OBL likely had a chance to surrender, as the SEALs probably shot him before they believed he could set off a suicide bomb. And the SEALs had no obligation to give him an opportunity to surrender, all that matter is whether he in fact did surrender.

[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.

WWII, the Allies waged war against a sovereign nation and finally enforced entry onto its territory. Isn'T this a violation of the sovereignity of said country that was minding just its own busioness and quarells with its immediate neighbours?

This might be true most times when dealing with a soveriegn nation state but it has zero applicability to extra-territorial terrorists. Terrorists bare no relation to countries however they do greatly resemble criminal organizations but instead of trading in illegal money, terrorists trade in violence.

Moral relativism aside sometimes violence is effective, might does make right and in any last-man-standing situation the resources of the focused and politically united nation state should be able to defeat terrorists with the application of law at home and controlled but appropraite firepower abroad.

Up to the adaption of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by the UN in the wake of the Rwanda genocide, the norms of international relations dating from the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia affirmed (in a rather broad nutshell) what happened inside a nations borders was the responsibility of that nation alone. R2P allowed intervention across national boundries to save life so the question then becomes, how many lives need to be lost before a cross-border intervention can occur.

What is the substantive difference between:

- a SEAL team violating national soveriegnty to kill somebody responsible for several thousand death and planning to murder several thousand more; or
- A full scale military intervention under R2P?

Which constiutes the greater violation?

You cannot have it both ways, R2P allows for ignoring international borders to save life, even if people get killed in the process. What happened in Abbottabad hopefully represents the new way of doing business with terrorist leaders.

The WW2 example is anyway badly flawed and does nothing to reinforce your arguement since being nice would never have made Hitler go away.

You cannot pay back violence for violence, by that you are not any better than the claimed aggressor is himself. Also, who is the aggressor really is a question of own position, I would say. One has to see things in relation a bit.

This would be nice if it applied in all cases but it does not. The controlled application of precision violence as seen May Day could very well render international terrorism much less effective in the future. Lt General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson is quoted as saying "Kill the officers and the cowards will run and take the brave men with them." Place the terrorist leadership and those nation states that shelter under notice; the new reality is that regardless where they might hide, they are the ones now living on a big bulls eye and nowhere is safe anymore. Eliminate the leaders in their presumed sanctuaries and over time the rest will become far less than effective.

[Armistead]

I see that christians and muslims are fighting and killing each other in Eygpt now. Seems the Muslim brotherhood will gain control. I have a feeling the entire Mid East is set to go radical bringing the world into crisis, course that's what the bible and Koran says, so I guess true or not both sides will make it happen.

Then heard Santorum in the GOP debate say "as a Catholic, for lack of a better word, we need a reformation against Islam." Yep, that's what we need after never ending wars with no end in sight.

I don't know if it's me, but seems the entire world is totally F'ed up, with religion and greed again the root problem.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I don't know if it's me, but seems the entire world is totally F'ed up, with religion and greed again the root problem.

The world is not more F'ed up than it used to be. Religion is just a veil behind which the real problems are: poverty, over exploitation, ignorance, extreme inequality, lack of freedom, the list goes on and on...

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by STEED

To be honest I don't give a s*** that turd is dead, legal or not.

Now let us go forward and get the rest of these pig dogs.

QFE.

[krashkart]

I don't really care about the legalities at this point. What I am most concerned about is what the eventual outcome will be.



Also,

Originally Posted by Betonov

The rule of law is only as effective, as long as both sides obey it. The US goverment would never assasinate a Slovenian citizen, because Slovenia obeys international laws. OBL didn't. He abused them

[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.