Nope. Thou shalt not murder.
Whether or not this was murder is debatable, as demonstrated by this thread.
Nobody is seriously contesting this point, AFAIK. Rather, the more precise issue and query would be do the laws of war and armed conflict permit the U.S. to assassinate or participate in a targeted killing of a subject, away from the field of battle, in a sovereign nation the U.S. is presently not engaged in a war or armed conflict against. From the several commentators and websites I have visited, the answer is a resounding “no” and for some of those reasons I have previously noted. I am looking for someone, anyone, to demonstrate why the answer of “no” is not correct.
Well, I am not asking you or anyone else to prove a negative.
I think you missed the point of what I was stating, or I stated it too poorly to be properly comprehended. The remark was if the laws of war do not permit the presumed targeting of Osama, or the killing of Osama, then bringing him to justice must be pursued in a manner consistent with international criminal law, i.e. he needs to be apprehended and tried.
BTV168: Slot Gacor Setiap Hari Tanpa Modal Besar Gampang Menang Read 13. I was raised Catholic. I memorized them as taught. It was thou shalt not kill. Perhaps they have changed them, gos would love that.
The Catholic Church does not teach that “killing” is always wrong.
You are repeating the simplified version told to children.
Not the right wing version that permits anything . I posted it. Did you read that?
May 2010 is the cusp of the 2012 presidential campaign? You think Obama played this card to secure a win in the friggin primary? You’re nuts!
Quoth NotreDame05:
It’s not the laws of war which prohibit killing away from the field of battle, but the laws of logic. bin Laden was killed on the field of battle: It became the field of battle by virtue of the simple fact that there was fighting there. Do you have any definition for “field of battle” that would not make this tautological?
Somebody’s already commented on this, but it’s silly to call this month the cusp of the 2012 campaign. Even if we grant that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee (quite likely, but it’s not inconceivable that he’ll be challenged by persons in his own party), the Republicans have scarcely begun the process of choosing their own nominee. The only thing that’s really been done in that area is Haley Barbour bowing out.
You keep referring to this “international criminal law” as if anyone gives a damn. No one does, because there is no effective means of enforcing it against the U.S., therefore “international criminal law”, whatever that may be, is moot. Our guys invaded Pakistan, popped Osama bin Laden and a few others, grabbed some computer stuff, and hauled ass over the border. Pakistan isn’t going to offer more than token bitching about it, because if they do, no more foreign aid for them. No one else has standing to complain.
Put another way–assume for the sake of argument that this mission was illegal under “international criminal law”. So what? Some professor somewhere may write a law review article about it, but there will be no practical consequences of any kind from a legal point of view.
Well, here is the information I have gathered, to this point.
First, assuming the operation was a “targeted killing” of Osama, an assassination perhaps, then this would be permissible under the laws of war if Osama can properly be classified as a combatant. I am not suggesting this is the only method for justifying the targeted killing of Osama, but rather I am stating it is but one way, and perhaps the only way, if no other justifications exist under international law for the targeted killing of Osama.
Under IHL (International Humanitarian Law) a combatant may be killed without warning, and the signatory nation may kill a combatant without warning.
To be designated a combatant requires the presence of an armed conflict. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 4, opened for signature Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135. A combatant is either a member of a state’s armed forces during armed conflict or a person who takes direct part in armed conflict hostilities. Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Convention (Although the U.S. is not a signatory to Additional Protocol 1 of the 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Convention, the ICRC in 1997 stated a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.
Under Additional Protocol I, members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, except for medical personnel and chaplains, are combatants. Essentially, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities. Persons with a right to take direct part in hostilities are lawful combatants and those devoid of such a right are rendered unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants are civilians directly engaging in armed conflict and they may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the state which seized them.
Civilians are protected unless they take a direct part in hostilities.
The term “combatant” is not exclusive to international armed conflicts. The ICRC stated in a comprehensive study of international law that, “Persons taking a direct part in hostilities in non-international armed conflicts are sometimes labeled “combatants.” For example, in a resolution on respect for human rights in armed conflict adopted in 1970, the UN General Assembly speaks of “combatants in all armed conflicts.” More recently, the term “combatant” was used in the Cairo Declaration and Cairo Plan of Action for both types of conflicts. However, this designation is only used in its generic meaning and indicates that these persons do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians, but does not imply a right to combatant status or prisoner-of-war status, as applicable in international armed conflicts.” *Customary International Humanitarian Law 13 * by Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald-Beck, 2005.
Alright, so the question is, assuming there was a targeted killing to justify, was Osama a combatant or a civilian? If he was a civilian, then the targeted killing was not permitted under any international laws. If he was a combatant, was he a lawful or unlawful combatant? Is a targeted killing of unlawful combatants permitted?
Can it be said Osama was taking a “direct part in hostilities in a non-international armed conflict or direct part in hostilities in an international armed conflict” when he retreated to Pakistan from Afghanistan? I suppose the answer to this question is probable contingent upon, among other things, the existing law defining the phrase “direct part in hostilities” and perhaps any international caselaw, and whether Osama was directing operations in Afghanistan from his location in Pakistan. So, perhaps if Osama was coordinating troop movements in Afghanistan, planning and coordinating attacks in Afghanistan, selecting targets to be attacked, and establishing goals to be achieved by the attacks, then I’d think he is taking direct part in hostilities.
But then again, as I said bofore, international law is certainly not my forte and so, I am not even sure this analysis is accurate. It appears to be accurate, however, based on what I could find so far.
Wanna bet the French claim they do?
To put it more succinctly: International Law is for losers.
I am reluctant to concur with your statement of fighting in some geographical area is sufficient to render it a “field of battle” AKA “battlefield.” So, for example, North Vietcong retreating into Laos and Cambodia from Vietnam, and the U.S. subsequently conducting military operations on Cambodian and Laos soil against those enemy forces, when neither Laos or Cambodia have consented to the U.S. military engaging the enemy forces on their soil, does not make or transform Cambodia and Laos into a battlefield, or any part of its geography into a battlefield, at least not a legitimate or lawful battlefield.
So the fact Osama has retreated within Pakistan, and the U.S. has conducted some military operations within Pakistan against Al Qaeda, without the consent of Pakistan, does not transform Pakistan into a legitimate or lawful battlefield.
Was it legal when the piece of shit killed thousands of people? Hell yes it was legal and we will get the rest of the scum bags sooner or later!!!
[My bolding]
Further, just in case anyone is wondering: International Humanitarian Law = Law of Armed Conflict = Laws of War. They are all the same body of law, just the name has changed over time.
I don’t have a problem with your overall assessment of IHL. However, I will restate it for clarity. A civilian is someone “not directly participating in hostilities.” They are civilians because they are not “members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict…” Members of State Armed forces are combatants. I also agree that it is the majority (last time I checked at least) consensus. However, the problem with that, as applied to the GWOT, is glaring. It’s a conduct based definition of Al Qaeda terrorists. Meaning, someone can pick up an AK-47, fight the Americans during the day, lay down his AK, and go home and return to being a civilian. Or, someone can actively plan and successfully initiate major attacks against America for several years. Then walk away to a Pakistan suburb and become a civilian.
A counter-view, and the same view used against the American military, the Iraqi Republican Guard, ect., and a view that evens the playing field is that you are a combatant based on your status as a member of a group of forces (doesn’t have to be tied to a States Armed Forces). So, marine is a combatant whether fighting or napping, and is a legit target based on his status as a marine. Osama bin Laden is a combatant based on his status as a member of Al Qaeda. Thus he is a legit target whether fighting or napping and can be killed without trying to arrest first (since he never moves in and out of civilian/combatant status). If he wants to quit, he needs to surrender to opposing forces or to a neutral country.
Having said that, I don’t think everyone should be killed based on their status (i.e., you have to have a pretty organized group to be a member of). So, a “true” civilian taking up arms on his own, or just because his town was being invaded, then quitting, would return to civilian status once he lays down his arms and goes home.
bin Laden is clearly a member of Al Qaeda and can be killed based on that status. It’s the others “members” where the debate is hardest.
I still agree that to kill him in a neutral country you would need that country’s permission.
But what does that even mean? We killed him in a neutral country without their permission. What’s going to happen to us? Nothing.
If Pakistan clearly objected (they did not), the UN could take the illegal action under consideration and handle it with condemnation of the mission, sanction against the violating country, use of force against the violating country; or do nothing.
In 1986 for instance, the UN “condemned” the US attacks against Libya for a similar reason.
What does it mean mean even if that happened? Nothing substantive. The UN would not sanction or use force. I mean, the US could veto it. And anything coming out of the general assembly (not the Security Council) would not be binding against the US. It would signal that it’s not tolerated, though. Setting a future precedent.
Theoretically, that’s what could happen. But you’re correct…nothing will happen. But then again, nothing should happen because Pakistan did not clearly object to the US violating their sovereignty (i.e., they still want our aid money, yo).
Considering others parts of Mosaic Law call for the death penalty for several offences, the Commandment certainly means “Thou Shalt Not Murder”.
I presented 3 versions. One says kill. One says kill/murder. One says murder. What makes you so sure?
I was taught “thou shalt not kill”.
Pakistan isn’t a neutral country.
Who is the authority on which countries are and are not part of the battlefield? In your view, how does a country join the battlefield?