As long as you’re clear that this (and the drone attacks) is “legal” only under the laws of war. The laws of war only apply in a war. They don’t apply, otherwise.
[Not just directed at John Mace] I think I’ve made my point clear about how “legal” in this situation is different depending on the body of law used to justify the actions, I just thought, perhaps mistakenly, there were more people on this board in the ‘can’t be in a war with Al Qaeda’ camp (thus legal justification under the laws of war previously mentioned in this thread do not apply, because there is no war). So, what then is the legal justification outside the laws of war?
Admittedly, this is the toughest time to hold that position against this* obviously* “bad” person (everybody knows OBL did everything we say he did - I don’t mean that sarcastically either). I’m glad he was killed (by badass Navy SEALS no less), I was unexpectedly excited about it, I wanted to celebrate not so much his death, but the closure his death brought. But, that sentiment of killing a terrorist far removed from a traditional battlefield is rife with due process concerns against foreign citizens suspected of terrorism (a crime). I now wonder if those concerns only apply to people not Osama Bin Laden (or, terrorists who are obviously bad people because the Government says so).
What if a country voluntarily signs an international covenant or treaty? Is it OK then for them to be subject to the laws of that treaty?
I don’t think it would be great if nation X was able to engage in genocide and have the perpetrators remain beyond the reach of the arm of something like the International Criminal Court.
In any case, I disagree even with your basic premise. You might as well just say that the US federal government should have no jurisdiction over the laws of Tennessee, because people in the rest of the USA don’t have the best interests of the people of Tennessee at heart.
Acts of Congress are generally presumed constitutional until ruled otherwise by the courts, and bin Laden had ten years in which he could have made an appearance in a U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of AUMF as applied to him. Really, he only has himself to blame.
(This is a joke. Somehow adding a winking smiley about someone getting shot in the head seemed a bit much, even if it is OBL)
No. If the US signs a treaty – say with Mexico, about fishing rights in the Gulf – and that treaty is ratified by Congress, then its terms become part of US law. That is not a case of international law superseding our (or Mexico’s) laws.
If the United Nations were to assert terms of such fishing rights without the US agreeing to said terms and ratifying the agreement, then THAT would be international law overriding ours.
Did you miss the part in my last post when I wrote that on thinking more deeply about the matter, I decided you had a point, mentioning places where great human rights offenses have occurred?
Tennessee is not a sovereign nation. Tennessee has surrendered a great portion of its control over its “internal” affairs to the United States since about 1796 (with a brief hiccup in the 1860s. But no international body should be able to, for instance, force the United States to outlaw capital punishment, or Canada to allow greater exploitation of its oil fields, or so forth, unless there is an egregious ongoing violation of human rights going on.
I am waiting to see how this shakes out politically, with Pakistan. I imagine that some of the Pakistani leaders need to act outraged for their own domestic politics. Others will no doubt be sincere in their outrage.
The Geneva Conventions (which is what is usually meant by “the laws of war”) were expanded after WW2 to cover “other than war” situations such as guerilla wars and resistance movements.
The rules for treatment of captured combatants only kick in if they actually surrender or are forcibly captured. If they are under arms and don’t offer to surrender (and there is no requirement to actively call for surrender) they can be shot on sight.
Well, I took the OP to mean not just in US laws, but in Pakistani and international law too - the phrase “entitling the US to legally kill him” seemed to suggest international law in particular. And Oakminster seemed to be addressing these points, so I was responding to those.
I also think the question, should the US military be accountable to some law when it’s acting outside the US borders? is an important one. And if it’s not accountable to US laws, as you seem to be suggesting, then international law - even if you think it’s inadequate - is all we’ve got. Unless you think completely unaccountable is somehow better.
I never suggested that the US military should not be accountable to our laws; it should be, no matter where it is. And as a matter of practicality, US servicemembers abroad should generally (but not always) be accountable to the laws of the country in which they are stationed.
Sure, but when you get right down to it, all law is really just about the practicalities. Treason never prospers; what’s the reason? When it does prosper, none dare call it treason. By the standards of British law in 1776, George Washington and his cronies would have been called criminals, but practically speaking, he got away with it, and so he and his cronies got to write the new laws under which the independent existence of the United States was perfectly legal.
When they are in a foreign country, unless there is agreement to the contrary with the foreign country, or they are accredited as diplomatic or consular personnel, or they are an invading force subject to the Geneva Conventions, they are subject to the laws of that country.
Yes, and pretty much any place on the map where U.S. soldiers are officially stationed they are either there in an active military role and thus subject to the laws of the UCMJ or there is an agreement with the foreign country.
For example in Japan the agreement was the Japanese had the option to prosecute any American soldiers who committed crimes in Japan off base. In practice they were always handled over to American officials. Behind the scenes details were leaked in the late 1990s/early 2000s that showed there was a “secret” behind-the-scenes deal in which Japanese officials agreed they would never exercise the option to try American military forces.
Even in countries I’m personally familiar with from my time overseas, where no such backroom deal existed, the host country typically preferred we handled it ourselves. While I know it happened, I can’t remember any serious crimes while I was in Germany where the German authorities didn’t hand the guy over to us. (There was at least one incident in which a soldier was gunned down by German police though, in a stand off situation–obviously in that case they handed us a body.)
While trying to find an answer, I looked into the 1998 cruise missile strikes against OBL/Al Qaeda/terrorists. The cruise missiles were launched in response to Al Qaeda’s terrorist attack on US embassies in Africa killing 250 people and wounding thousands. Now, definitely at this time the US had a law enforcement attitude towards terrorists (get the feds to figure out who did it, bring them to justice using American civilian courts). Obviously, firing cruise missiles at terrorist camps is not law enforcement. Clinton based the legality of using the missiles under Art. 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense). Clinton deemed the embassy bombings an act of war against the US and we responded in self-defense.
So even in 1998 we invoked the laws of war as justification to target terrorists (against OBL no less).
As far as targeted killings outside the laws of war, it appears to only be allowed against terrorists when there is an imminent threat of a terrorist attack.
It authorizes THE PRESIDENT to do all those war actions. Until January 20th.. 2008, that was Bush. At noon and until at least January 20th, 2012, it’s Obama. Nothing needs to be ‘renewed.’
Who gives a fuck as long as we killed OBL? The Israelis of course, back in 1962 nabbed Adolf Eichmann right off from his home in Buenos Aires. and the only one who complained about it was Nazi and war criminal Kurt Waldheim.