I know it will never happen, but I’m curious what events would take place if OBL surrendered.
If the surrender was formal, I assume we could no longer (legally) drop a bomb on him. True?
Would he be tried in an international court, or US court? If international, where is this court? Who would preside? Is it only open for business in rare instances such as these, or do they always have a full docket?
What if he requested and was granted asylum by Country X? Would we likely go to war with this country, or spend years negociating for his extradition?
I very much doubt the West would want to drop a bomb at that point. The intel value, to say nothing of PR value, of him alive would be too much to pass up. But if you are asking legally, under most rules of engagement that I am aware of, combatants must be allowed to surrender.
Throughout this process the U.S. has made clear that Military Tribunals will be used to try al-Queda suspects. Since we are doing that now with his first, second and third level associates, you can be pretty sure we’d do the same to him.
Sad to say I think it depends on the Country : OBL showing up decisively, i.e. granting interviews of the “I’m staying at the Plaza” variety in places such as: Syria, Iraq, Sudan, or Iran would bring an short (say 48 hr) ultimatum to hand him over and then military action. In the extremely unlikely event he showed up in, and was protected by the govt of, of say China, Russia, or N. Korea – I think there would be different reaction. Maybe negotiations, hot rhetoric, severe sanctions – but probably not ultimately military action.
Also we have something called the Bush Doctrine which says we will make no distinction between the terrorist scumbags and countries who harbor them (not exactly the words but the meaning is the same). So if OBL got ayslum that country would be on our shit list and the bombing would start in 5 minutes (whoops the wrong pres quote but again you get the idea)
I think whether we immediately begin bombing a country depends a whole lot on what country OBL is in. Like jimmmy said above, if he ends up in China or Russia, I highly doubt that bombing those countries would EVER be an option. Why might those countries, especially China, accept OBL in the first place? To gain concessions from the US in return for handing OBL over on a silver platter.
legally yes, the US government could not summarily execute him, but it hasn’t followed international law on the other al-Quaida suspects so it’s difficult to say if it would with him. Infact IIRC the US government did admit a little while ago that it would not try to capture him and just kill him on the spot in order to avoid legal complexities. One of the reasons for this is that the evidence that the US government has to link him directly with 9/11 probably wouldn’t meet the standard required for a criminal prosecution.
Any high signatory of the Geneva convention can try someone for war crimes and crimes against humanity, though there is a court in the Hague for this purpose. The US government would pobably try him themselves as they would be perfectly legally entitled to and they could be surer of getting the result they wanted.
If it was not realistic to go to war with the country Bush would have no option but to sue for extradition, but though you could make a case that Pakistan (depending on a change of regime which is not out of the realms of possibility) might except him, most other countries would hand him over, esp. in return for something.
note: though the European constitution would specifically forbid him from being handed over if the death sentence was a possibilty, Europe has said it would make an exception for those involved in 9/11.
The US. If I remember correctly, he is the only private individual that USA has actually declared war on (which happened long before the World Trade Center attack, bu the way). If you’re at war with someone, be it person or nation, they are allowed to surrender.
As MC Master implies the U.S. has said before and in fact the New York Times re-reported today Bush has authorized the CIA to kill OBL and about 20 associates if:
“capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized,”
NYTimes 12/14/02
I read the OP as OBL surrendering tho, not suppose that we found him …
k2dave IIRC the U.S. charges, if ever, against OBL will also include circa 2800 counts of first degree muder
I think I get the gist of your post Priceguy and I agree with the general sentiment, but to clarify as you know (I think); The U.S. is conducting all this through a series of congressional resolutions and Executive Orders, not thru a formal Declaration of War
I’m sure all the recent happenings are conducted as you describe, but I believe there has been a declaration of war against Bin-Laden, long before the World Trade Center attack. Can anyone confirm or deny?
I’m not sure, if there had been a declaration of war by the US against Bin Laden as states very rarely declare war on organizations, BUT I believe that Bin Laden declared war on the US long before this anywa. If any group declares war on another and one of those groups has signd the appropiatee international treaties (like the US had) they are both bound by the rules of war.
I highly doubt that the United States has formally declared war on Osama, for one reason. As someone on these boards put it a while ago, officially declaring war (i.e. Having Congress make a formal declaration) went out of vogue sometime around the end of the Second World War.
I think that the US has specifically claimed that this is not a war. That’s why the various people captured during the activity are classified as “enemy combatants”. The US has claimed that these people do not have the rights of prisoners of war, since no war has been declared. That’s been the justification for holding various people incommunicado in the concentration camp in Cuba (whatever the damned camp is called these days).
So I don’t think we’re at war (in the international, legal) sense of the word.
Yes, but of Osma has declared war on the US, then their still bound by international law. Of course this area is a bit fuzzy as the original drafting was designed to make sure that rebel groups within a country and the government of that country were bound by the rules of war, however the US is almost certainly acting illegally by not giving the captives in cuba prisoners-of-war status.