DrDeth beat me to it. It’s legal under U.S. law because of the AUMF of September 2001. (“In A.D. 2001, war was beginning…”)
And presumably we’ve got some sort of blanket permission to carry out raids in Pakistan, because we’ve been doing drone attacks there for some time now. In which case it’s legal there as well.
And if we’d known bin Laden was holed up at a particular location in Pakistan, and Pakistan hadn’t been willing to give permission, that’s what the bit in the AUMF about those harboring people involved in the 9/11 attacks is about. It would be an act of war against Pakistan, but legal under U.S. law, and we wouldn’t care about its legality under Pakistani law because you really don’t worry about whether your act of war against another country is legal there. Of course it’s not.
So, if President Obama determines that George W. Bush “aided the terrorist attacks”, he can order the U.S. military to use a remote-control drone to take out Mr Bush in his lair in Crawford, Texas? If not, why not?
I have a hard time seeing the conflict against bin Laden’s forces as not being a war, and a likewise hard time considering bin Laden himself to not be a combatant in that war. One could, I suppose, take the position that the war itself was unjust, and that therefore all enemy combatants killed in it were killed unlawfully, but I won’t even make that argument: Unlike Saddam, bin Laden did unambiguously attack us first. I will say that I think the war was unwise, but that matters not for this discussion: Plenty of things are unwise and yet legal.
One could, of course, debate how this stands under Pakistani law. I expect, though, that the proper diplomatic channels were probably followed, and that Pakistan gave (grudging) consent to this action. And if they did not, then they were knowingly aiding in the shelter of a military enemy of the US, which could be construed as justification for something that could be considered an act of war against Pakistan. I think that a war against Pakistan would be even more unwise than the one against bin Laden’s forces, but on the other hand, Pakistan’s leadership is basically sane, and would consider such a war even more unwise, and will therefore probably not construe this action as an act of war even if they didn’t agree to it in advance.
Quoth Oakminster:
More precisely, it’s whatever the powers that be at any given time say it is. Other great powers such as China, Europe, and Russia have some say in international law, in proportion to the power they wield, and in times past when other nations were the world’s superpowers, they had most of the say in what constituted international law.
It might be a “really, really bad idea”, but is it unlawful? And what does being a US citizen, or being on US soil, have to do with it, if our Mr Bush really has been (hypothetically) aiding Al Qaede? That’s not mentioned in the congressional resolution.
I agree the action was legal due to the AUMF or UN Article 51 (or both) and OBL is the most obvious al qaeda terrorist to identify (you’re not getting to the, “I was only a cook, that’s not enough to make me apart of Al Qaeda” argument). This one is terribly easy.
However, some people, very logically, claim you can’t be at war with a terrorist organization (even if Congress says so) because terrorists don’t commit acts of war, they commit crimes. It’s a view I don’t share in this instance, but totally respect. If you’re at war OBL = combatant (kill as measure of first resort); if you’re not a war OBL = citizen/suspected terrorist (kill only as a measure of last resort). How is it lawful to intentionally kill him as a citizen. I’m not seeing how it is, but am open to learn. If I’ve misrepresented the ‘can’t be at war with al qaeda argument’, then I’m also open to correction.
Some people – in general people who have not thought the issue all the the way through or who are hostile in to some degree to American interests – think that our national laws should be subordinate to international ones. I won’t give my opinion of those people in this forum.
[QUOTE=Giles]
It might be a “really, really bad idea”, but is it unlawful? And what does being a US citizen, or being on US soil, have to do with it, if our Mr Bush really has been (hypothetically) aiding Al Qaede? That’s not mentioned in the congressional resolution.
[/QUOTE]
Tough to arrest 30 armed insurgents in Kargil. Not so tough to send the FBI to arrest George W. Bush in Crawford.
[QUOTE=AUMF]
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
[/QUOTE]
He could try, but he’d be faced with a very long string of resignations of the officers to whom he gave the order, followed in very short order by a successful impeachment. If it even got that far: Most likely, Biden would take it as evidence that Obama is no longer mentally competent to serve as President, and would have him removed from power under the terms of the 25th Amendment.
I don’t think you’re right here. Saying that killing Osama Bin Laden was not illegal is not the same thing as saying that killing him was wise or even justified. It’s saying that it’s not a matter for US laws. It’s extralegal.
[QUOTE=Yousuf Raza Gilani - Pakistani prime minister]
We will not allow our soil to be used against any other country for terrorism and therefore I think it’s a great victory, it’s a success and I congratulate the success of this operation.
[/QUOTE]
No. I am pointing out that on the scale of legal <–> illegal, the killing of ObL in this instance is not the farthest thing on the right and that we routinely do things of more questionable legality than this action.
Yes, but that’s an argument about the practicalities, not the lawfulness. If it’s lawful to assassinate Osama, because he’s part of an organisation effectively at war with the US, and because he won’t surrender to US troops, why is it not lawful to do something similar to a leading member of the organisation who is a US citizen, on US soil?
Let’s go back to 1861, but with today’s technology. South Carolina has seceded from the Union and taken a federal fort located within the state. With a resolution similar to the AUMF, could President Lincoln have lawfully used an unmanned drone to kill the Governor of South Carolina? (Since he is still a US citizen on US soil.)
For example: anyone who’s not American?
If every country had the right to override international law at will, there wouldn’t really be a lot of point in having an international law, really… Or is it just the US who can override it at will? Because… something. And everyone else should just be OK with that because… something.
Sounds like a sensible thoughtful position for 4.5% of the global population to take. :rolleyes:
I don’t expect non-American-citizens to necessarily have the best interests of the United States at heart. (Please don’t misinterpret that as an anti-immigrant sentiment; I do not mean to imply, and do not believe, that illegal immigrants are necessarily hostile, or even more likely to be hostile, to the US.) It’s reasonable for someone in, say, India or China or Russa or France to have a different take on things. I was commenting on the attitudes of some American citizens who I take not to have the country’s best interests at heart.
I should have made it clearer that I was talking about US citizens and nationals, not persons from other countries.
Isn’t war legally defined as an armed conflict between two nations?
In which case things like the Geneva Conventions would apply for the treatment of captured armed combatants?
If I didn’t write that upthread, I certainly meant to.
ETA: Though perhaps that’s an overbroad statement, since it would argue against military intervention in places like Libya & Somalia and the Balkans. In fact, as I think on it, the point you seem to be making is correct.
But as a US citizen, I want my president to be guided by our laws, not the International Court of Justice. Chauvinistic of me, I know.
