Pakistan was supposed to be an ally in hunting down OBL. They are not a neutral country.
The fact that we did the raid without notifying the Pakistanis, is proof we did not trust them. Otherwise we would have given them a heads up and allowed them to stand by and take some of the credit. That we dealt them out, means they will be unlikely to get our foreign aid money to filter to the leadership in the future.
Various passages in the Bible right next to the Ten Commandments that order the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, and so on.
The important thing is: What does the original Hebrew word mean? It’s quite common for the translations to be not quite right, particularly that of the King James version.
How about the Aramaic version ?
Yeah you couldn’t be further away from lawful evil. Lawful evil is when you send a starving child to the gallows for stealing a loaf of bread.
This was not the sort of assassination that would have violated an executive order (and there is no US law that prohibits it). The executive order prohibits “political” assassinations. Killing people to overthrow a regime against which we are not engaged in armed conflict is prohibited. This started with Ford when he found out that we had tried to assassinate Castro a few times so assassinating Kim Jung Il would be illegal. Shooting a terrorist through the eye with a laser from a satellite in outer space is entirely within the rules of war and our domestic laws (as long as the person being lasered to death is outside the US).
We could certainly have dropped a bomb on the bin Laden compound and been entirely within the bounds of domestic and international law. The only reason this situation is different is that there was a chance that bin Laden would surrender and we’re not allowed to kill someone who has actually surrendered (the second shot “just to make sure” might have been over the top).
The bill of rights attaches to anyone who is a US citizen or within the borders of the USA.
In international law, you are dealing with sovereigns who are not subject to any law but their own and any that others can impose on them through force or suasion.
The Catholic church permits killing in self defense at the very least. I think they also permit killing during war. And certainly permits killing during crusades.
Quoth NotreDame05:
No country ever consents to having a battlefield within their borders. If that were the standard, then there’d be no such thing as a legitimate battlefield.
Define “neutral”. The person who posted that originally seems to agree with me. Or at least he didn’t object.
Worth reading: Assassinating Terrorist Leaders: A Matter of International Law.
Too many big words. I need Assassinating Terrorist Leaders for Dummies.
The gist of it is “Doubtful legality, but he needed killin’ because he was a very bad man.”
Thank-you.
I agree with Giles’ unbiased views in general.
To add, ABC news will report what the US Gov tells them. We will never find out for sure the details, navy seal will never say, however a witness, a 12-year old girl has said a.) her father was unarmed, b) captured alive c) shot. That equals summary execution and I believe is illegal, even under the laws of ‘war’ - and was outside ‘hours of combat’ under Geneva Convention.
A quick disposal was the US’ key strategy - no shrine, no court, no questions asked re legality. Personally, it concerns me that the US are able to act in the way they do and this verges almost on being at the same level as those they are trying to dispose of. The Archbishop of Canterbury is right when he says this is not the image of justice we want to send out. You don’t sneak into someone else’s country in the dead of night and execute someone. How would the US feel if this happened to them?
A cleverer move might have been to find out more about the organisation as a whole, rather than stick a bullet in the head of the person who knew the most. This isn’t going to do much to their organisation, except incite even further hatred.
Put simply, you don’t fight a fire by adding fuel.
I was thinking that some laws should be international (e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), that having an entity capable of enforcing those laws would be a good thing, and that it’s good that countries would be willing to arrest someone who violated such an international law when that person left their home country to travel abroad (using Pinochet again as an example.)
In practice, when a country signs an international treaty, such as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, then they should be expected to implement laws to enforce that treaty.
Finally, of the international treaties I am familiar with (Human Rights treaties), I haven’t seen one yet that shouldn’t be ratified by every country. And since we’re talking about the US, this country has a poor record about adopting those treaties. One famous example being that only two countries in the world (the USA and Somalia) have not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Well, it is an untrue statement no country “ever” consents to having a battlefield within their borders. A declaration of war, or something akin to it, by express declaration or some other specific conduct, is ipso facto, consenting to a battlefield within its borders. Consequently, this weakens your claim there is “no such thing as a legitimate battlefield,” under the principle I relied upon.
Furthermore, my example was merely stating under what circumstances a battlefield would not exist, as opposed to articulating a general principle of sufficient and necessary conditions for a battlefield to exist. Retreating members of an organization, or a military, into a sovereign nation, a nation in which the conflagration did not originate, does not render the nation of refuge a battlefield.
Is there a situation, or situations, in which a nation is a battlefield without the nation’s consent? Sure, but those situations are not applicable to this scenario as to transform Pakistan into a battlefield justifying a U.S. military excursion.
So, when do you expect that Pakistan is going to complain to the UN Security Council about this infringement on its sovereignty?
Well, it is perhaps as not as clear as I’d like it to be, or some other people, and I think it is safer to say, at the moment, there is a better understanding of what facts, situations, and scenarios would not transform an independent and sovereign nation into a battlefield. I am not suggesting there does not exist some general idea, principle, or body of law stating when a battlefield materializes.
I knew a question of this sort was coming several days ago, and I have spent some time trying to conceptualize what the word “battlefield” means, and under what circumstances when the land within a nation’s geographical boundaries constitutes as a “battlefield,” the latter inquiry directly related to your query of how a country joins the battlefield. Perhaps the most obvious way in which a country joins the battlefield is by a formal declaration of war, something akin to it, or its military engaging a foreign nation’s military in combat. So, Germany invading France and Poland would have necessarily transformed France and Poland into a battlefield, an area of land in which the armies of two or more governments meet each other and engage in armed hostilities against one another.
Or, when Japan suddenly attacked the U.S. naval fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor, then this immediately made the entire nation of Japan a potential battlefield, even if and where Japan never formally declared war on the U.S., the attack on the naval fleet at Pearl Harbor constituted as an act of war and as a declaration of war. Consequently, the U.S. would be permitted to retaliate with a military response on Japanese soil.
Germany declaring war on the U.S. immediately after its ally, Japan, had attacked Pearl Harbor, rendered Germany a battlefield, and all of the countries and territories under its political, governmental, and military control.
Those are some of the scenarios in which a nation joins a battlefield, or becomes a battlefield.
Now, as you can observe, this is notion of battlefield is inundated with references to nations, and the armies of nations, and declarations of war from nations. In my honest assessment of international law, the laws of war are archaic, which is to say they were conceived at a time when nations fought nations, with their armies, over some specified air space, or some particular amount of land, specifically where the enemy occupied space and land. The international law was not conceived at a time when organizations attacked nations in an unconventional manner.
At this time, acts like 9-11, are construed as criminal actions, and should be prosecuted as criminal actions, and the perpetrators pursued, detained, and treated as suspected criminals and fugitives. Until the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Osama and his co-conspirators were criminals. It was not until the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and with the permission and in collusion with the then Afghan government, Al-Qaeda and Osama resisted the U.S. military, thereby making Osama a lawful combatant. However, his withdrawal from the battlefield in Afghanistan, into Pakistan, is what complicates the matter.