Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

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.


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.

Ehem, Randomizer - it seems that somebody was not aware that... no, I let somebody else explain it.

Lazy pack, nobody's here when being needed.

People knowing me a bit would immediately realise that my posting you answer to impossibly could have been meant serious by me. Thanks for biting.

[Bilge_Rat]

As to the question, OBL and Al Qaida declared war on the US. As leader of the opposing army, he was a valid military target. The attack was perfectly legal within the rules of war.

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.

The only country that can complain is Pakistan. Since the US violated their sovereignty, they may choose to consider the operation an act of war and declare war on the US. However, considering the mood of the US public over the fact that Pakistan harbored OBL for years, I don't think that would be a wise move. Afghanistan was invaded for a lot less in 2001....

There is really no issue.

------


The more interesting issue for me is the fact that the Republicans who raised a stink over Obama not getting prior congressional approval before bombing Libya did not raise a peep over Obama invading Pakistan to exterminate OBL.

Has the Constitution changed?

[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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

As to the question, OBL and Al Qaida declared war on the US. As leader of the opposing army, he was a valid military target. The attack was perfectly legal within the rules of war.

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.

The only country that can complain is Pakistan. Since the US violated their sovereignty, they may choose to consider the operation an act of war and declare war on the US. However, considering the mood of the US public over the fact that Pakistan harbored OBL for years, I don't think that would be a wise move.

There is really no issue.

Agree 100%

[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 Bilge_Rat

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

Actually they both had at least one fundamental point in common...they were both responsible for the deaths of a great many innocent people.

[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...

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

Pearl harbour attack: 2,400 dead.
9/11 attack: 3,000 dead.

the parallel seems pretty clear to me.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

War on terror is still a war.
People behind the war should be dealt as such.
Its not that US went to carpet bomb Pakistan or Afganistan.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Actually they both had at least one fundamental point in common...they were both responsible for the deaths of a great many innocent people.

Yes, but you can say the same about "Bomber" Harris and "Hap" Arnold for example. They also killed a great many innocent people but they did it in a context of pure military reasoning. "Total" wars tend to kill large numbers of people, and rarely make a serious distinction between civilian and combatant.

OBL simply doesn´t fit here. He was a terrorist who was legitimally put down by the state he offended.

[TLAM Strike]

Either OBL as a terrorist is Hostis humani generis much like a pirate and subject to universal jurisdiction or his is an enemy combatant found in an allied nation at war against the same group. Both ways its a legal kill and the only way it becomes illegal as my litigiously learned comrade pointed out would be if he attempted to surrender. Now I would have preferred if the guys from ST6 brought him back to stand trial but I can't fault them for pulling the trigger.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Pearl harbour attack: 2,400 dead.
9/11 attack: 3,000 dead.
the parallel seems pretty clear to me.

Take a look beyond the casualties and you see the parallel ends there. Pearl Harbour was a military target and casualties were mostly military personnel.

Originally Posted by MH

War on terror is still a war.
People behind the war should be dealt as such.
Its not that US went to carpet bomb Pakistan or Afganistan.

US didn´t carpet bomb Pakistan or Afganistan because it is not at war with these entities, it´s fighting a terrorist organization/movement in the soil of said countries. "War on Terror" is a nice label, like 'War on Drugs", but it helps nothing to the solution.


Mates, very interesting discussion, unfortunatelly I´ve got to go, which is fine because my despicable english skills are strained to the most .

[gimpy117]

Legal? Ehhh..iffy

anyone going to be charged for it? absolutely not.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Yes, but you can say the same about "Bomber" Harris and "Hap" Arnold for example. They also killed a great many innocent people but they did it in a context of pure military reasoning. "Total" wars tend to kill large numbers of people, and rarely make a serious distinction between civilian and combatant.

OBL simply doesn´t fit here. He was a terrorist who was legitimally put down by the state he offended.

I dont disagree, but the distinction for me is whether OBL was a criminal entitled to due process or part of an opposing enemy force who could be attacked at any time.

If the Germans had attacked the base where they were and killed Harris or Arnold, it would have been just another act of war, not a war crime.

OBL could not expect to be exempt from attack simply because he was not part of a formally constituted state.