| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? |
| 2011-05-03 |
| One European's view of the bin Laden action, and the WoT in general. (He neglects to discuss the Libyan action.) Americans are celebrating, but there are serious doubts about whether the targeted killing was legal under international law and the laws of war. I personally don't find it cause for public celebration or joy, though it doesn't much bother me. I do. U-lu-lu-lu-lu-lu!!! What is just about killing a feared terrorist in his home in the middle of Pakistan? Uh, we hadn't had any luck getting Pakistan to arrest and extradite him? Uh, Binny and the ISI were joined at the hip? Justice for crimes is "not achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial." That may be the ideal path, but in this case Plan B was required. Consider him tried and sentenced in the court of American public opinion, with execution carried out by our Special Forces. He can take up his appeal with Allan. Binny wasn't a criminal. He was a terrorist. Criminals get trials. Terrorists get whacked. Happy to explain it. Kress says the normal way of handling a man who is sought globally for commissioning murder would be to arrest him, put him on trial and ultimately convict him. And what business did the United States even have acting within the territory of Pakistan, a foreign power? A military strike that crosses national borders, barring acts of self-defense, is generally viewed as an infringement on sovereignty. They had their chances and chose, either through inaction or discreet action, this path. Those who don't respect the rules of sovereignty won't have their sovereignty respected. Harbor a wanted terrorist and someone's going to come get him. |
| Posted by:Glenmore |
| #11 There was a trial en abstentia. The killing was sentencing, in absence of a judge. Judge Dredd is ok with it. |
| Posted by: Blinky Shomolet7908 2011-05-03 20:57 |
| #10 Funny how real life has a way of showing up and fucking with their perfect little world. See ya next time... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2011-05-03 20:33 |
| #9 I think this clown is just trying to get the Lefties goat. You bozos wanted to try Bush for war crimes for waterboarding, what do you think about wacking a guy without even reading him his Miranda rights? Where's the outcry? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-05-03 19:47 |
| #8 But Chili, the man is just a simple community organizer. He would've had to go to law school to learn about all that legal stuff! Seriously, "was bin Laden's killing legal?" is the stupidest question I have ever heard. Sure, "there are serious doubts about whether the targeted killing was legal under international law and the laws of war" - IF you are a total retard. Kress says the normal way of handling a man who is sought globally for commissioning murder would be to arrest him, put him on trial and ultimately convict him. No. That might be this dink's fondest wet dream, but in reality it would be completely abnormal. "It is difficult to find examples of nations that refrained from the aggressive use of force out of respect for international law. If custom is what counts, it favors aggression." - Robert Bork |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2011-05-03 19:28 |
| #7 Perhaps Obama could have issued a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. |
| Posted by: CincinnatusChili 2011-05-03 17:53 |
| #6 Mercutio's got it. Outlaws, brigands and pirates are all outside the law -- the law simply doesn't protect them. That's why you can have a summary field trial and hang them. Ditto for terrorists. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-05-03 14:01 |
| #5 The real international law [not to be confused with made-up wishful thinking] says that if you do not comply with the article of the Conventions, you do not get the protection of those Conventions. Not a legal government, no uniform, wanton killing of civilians - seems the person in question had no basis to expect the 'protection' of law. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-05-03 13:59 |
| #4 "Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal?" Who gives a sh*t what the EUros think? They've been accepting - no, demanding - our military protection and our money while bad-mouthing us for decades. Here's a free clue, Mr. Kress: WE DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT YOU AND YOUR FELLOW NANCY-BOYS THINK. I'm so grateful my ancestors got on those boats. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2011-05-03 13:49 |
| #3 We have an inherent right of self defense. This right goes beyond any international law or treaty. UBL had declared war on the USA, it was official, we have every right to hunt the leader of any organization, be it political, national, religious, and hunt them down to capture or kill by whatever means appropriate. Any nation that safeguards our enemy is defacto supporting the war and our enemy. They have no right or rights as far as we are concerned. At the end of the day we "Support and Defend the constitution of the United States" Not the UN, not some convention or international panel. Not now, not ever! UBL can rot in hell as he is certainly rotting on the bottom of the ocean. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2011-05-03 13:43 |
| #2 Legal. Under the Anglo-Saxon-Nordic tradition of outlawry. Being declared an outlaw didn't just mean you operated outside the law. It meant you had no protection under the law. Anyone could hunt you down and kill you. If islam can claim 7th century jurisprudence to still be in effect, then an even older justice system may also be applied. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2011-05-03 13:35 |
| #1 I've always been puzzled by this line of reasoning. You go to war against a state or state-like organization that is itself committing war crimes and acts of aggression at the direction of its head of state/leader. It's illegal and immoral to take out the guy who's masterminding it all and bears the greatest responsibility therefor, but it's perfectly acceptable to kill his footsoldiers--even the ones who were conscripted or coerced into joining--by the bushel? How is that in any way moral? |
| Posted by: Mike 2011-05-03 13:33 |