Nonsense. Congress declared war against pirates in 1802, and one of the key precepts of customary international law that relates precisely to this situation (which involves self-defense, raids into third countries, and violence by subnational actors) dates to 1837. Google the Caroline incident for more details.
Sorry, but Congress, the Executive Branch, NATO, and the UN have categorized Al Qaeda’s attack as a threat to international peace and security, not a criminal matter. That does not exclude the possibility of prosecution of criminal laws, but it also doesn’t preclude the legitimacy of military action.
You can certainly say that you’d prefer the matter to be treated not as a matter of military intervention. But literally every level of international policy making (Federal, multilateral treaty organizations, and the United Nations) have endorsed military action against Bin Laden.
Shoot, even Ban Ki-moon stated that “justice has been done” re: the killing of Bin Laden.
Non-sense!!! I specifically stated, "The international law was not conceived at a time when organizations attacked nations in an unconventional manner. Furthermore, my remark was confined by the context of the post, which was done in regards to conceptualizing “battlefield.” You have said nothing, and indeed the Caroline incident says nothing to refute my remark.
The UN’s characterization of the 9-11 attack as a “threat to international peace and security” is not synonymous with authorizing a war, much less authorizing a targeted killing. As far as international law is concerned, the 9-11 attacks were a violation of international law, and the perpetrators criminals, not military actors of any sort, and consequently, they were to be pursued and prosecuted as fugitives. What transformed this analysis, as I told you before, was the authorization to use military force against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda located in Afghanistan.
What is less clear, however, is whether the 9-11 attacks permits the U.S. to perform military operations, and targeted killings, on the sovereign soil of other nations, and justify it as “armed conflict,” thereby permitting those operations. After my brief and cursory examination of international law in this area, I am dubious international law permits such actions and instead requires those individuals to be treated as criminals and pursued as such, as opposed to killing them as enemy soldiers in a battlefield. Equally unclear is whether Osama was a combatant after having retreated to Pakistan and this is important in assessing whether the presumed targeted killing was justified.
The Pakistan government is raising hell. They are plenty pissed at our ignoring their sovereignty. But the fact that we did not trust them is a slap in the face. But the truth is, we did not trust them.
Most think Pakistan knew about OBL living there and think he had help from many Pakistanis and likely the government.
They still want our money so they will temper their indignation. We will still give it to them.
What’s the next raid, taking over the nuclear bomb installations?