If there is no ‘war’ against Al Qaeda, and OBL is not a combatant, then I don’t see how his intentional targeting for killing* is legally justified when he’s living in a suburban mansion in Pakistan far removed from the Afghanistan battlefield. However, I do think there is a war against Al Qaeda, and OBL is obviously a member, and that makes him a combatant entitling the US to legally kill him as a measure of first resort wherever found.
Any thoughts? Does it matter for him? I’m just curious if it’s legal, unless done under the laws of war (Is it legal if he’s not a combatant?). The President in his speech last night used the word “war” regarding Al Qaeda a few times, so I know where he stands. Does the fact that it’s Osama Bin Laden cloud the issue? I feel like I’m missing something obvious (it’s OBL, of course we can kill the fucker!)
*Assume the mission was a raid to take OBL dead or alive. i.e., they didn’t surround the compound and say “come out with your hands up” and OBL shot back, forcing the SEALS to act in self-defense.
*No assumptions on whether Pakistan was ok with us breaching their sovereignty to kill someone. But that’s likely another issue.
It largely depends on whether the Pakistanis okayed it first. It’s fairly well settled that conducting military operations inside the borders of a foreign sovereign state is an act of war.
Under US law, maybe, but that’s not what the OP is asking.
I daresay he was, in a leadership role, and is subject to the same targeting as enemy generals even if they never personally pick up weapons and start shooting.
It *can be seen *as an act of war. The Pakistanis are under no obligation to consider it as such.
If you slap me on the face, I have the *right *to punch you, but I don’t *have *to punch you. If you’re bigger than I am, it probably wouldn’t be that good an idea.
Really the question is moot. Osama was never within U.S. territory, so I doubt any federal court would have jurisdiction. Pakistan’s law is irrelevant, since our guys got in and got out without getting caught. International law is…vague at best. Mostly it is whatever we say it is.
Obama does have lawful authority as Commander in Chief to order military missions. He did that. Not seeing any real legal problem here.
I don’t know all the details, and I doubt any of us ever will know, but it seems to me a simple case of: We went in to capture him. He and his guards fought back. ObL was killed. We didn’t go in to kill him, but he “resisted arrest”.
I guess we could have tried to taser him, but he’d just yell out: Don’t taz me, bro!
We (the government of the USA) warned him that his life would be forfeit; he had ample opportunity to submit himself to the rule of USA law and didn’t take advantage of that opportunity. In MHO he got what he wanted and what he deserved. If the act of killing him was illegal, who will bring charges and in what court?
I assume the OP is speaking in an academic sense. It’s pretty obvious nobody will (or should!) do time for this. However, it would be prosecuted as a war crime, if at all, so neither 12 Americans nor an (American) judge/prosecutor would be required.
Remember, the shooting took place on Pakistani soil, and bin Laden was a foreign national.
“Paki” is an ethnic slur, and there are a number of people on the boards who find it personally offensive. I’ll assume you didn’t know, and are simply using it as a contraction, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use it again.