Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Was Bin Laden Raid Legal? Probably, According to International Law Experts

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202493512621&Was_Bin_Laden_Raid_Legal_Probably_According_to_International_Law_Experts&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The question to my mind is whether a State can declare 'war' on an individual or an organisation that operates across international lines. The last administration decided that it could

If this redefinition of war can be legally justified, then surely similar justifications exist for the killing of that individual as part of war.

[Samoray 165]

So it would be OK for Mexico to send an armed military team into the US to capture/kill a Mexican drug lord and just not tell us until it was over?

And the US has the right to kill whomever they deem to be a terrorist without a trial?

What if another country deemed Obama a terrorist? Could they just send a team to the US to kill/capture him with no trial and we would be OK with it?

The US did kill OBL inside of Pakistan cause it could, with or without the approval of the Pakistani Government, but could Mexico go with 4 helicopters into the US air, without a permission, not gonna happen of course, they will be shot down in no time, it is always the stronger who can do then after the fact negotiate the legitimacy of the action.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The man is dead. There's only one question left to ask: Did we really have to pollute the ocean with that piece of shite?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Was Bin Laden Raid Legal? Probably, According to International Law Experts

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202493512621&Was_Bin_Laden_Raid_Legal_Probably_According_to_International_Law_Experts&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Probably is not good enough.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Probably is not good enough.

I'm quite satisfied.

[Zero Sum 305]

I disagree with the premise of the article. There is no way this can be considered a political assasination. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, not a political entity.

The message needs to be sent clearly and consistantly to these types of organizations. If you want to be treated as a political entity, act like one. And once they start attacking and killing innocent people, there is no going back. Bin Laden got more justice than he ever gave anyone. If someone else wants to step up and fill his shoes, they can have the target painted on their heads too.

Usually we've circumvented law by having friends do our assassinations for us.

Do I believe the USA is in proper legal context in the killing of OBL specifically? Yes. Several people disagree with this- and many do out of mere opposition to anything that comes out of the current White House administration. Others question it out of principle, which is respectable.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Usually we've circumvented law by having friends do our assassinations for us.

Do I believe the USA is in proper legal context in the killing of OBL specifically? Yes. Several people disagree with this- and many do out of mere opposition to anything that comes out of the current White House administration. Others question it out of principle, which is respectable.

As far as entering Pakistan (assuming Pakistan did not give consent), article 51 of the UN charter would allow a sovereign state to enter a second state in cases of national defense when the latter nation is unwilling OR unable to act on the matter itself. Since Bin Laden attacked the USA in the past and continued to present a threat, he was a legal target. The UN security council issued specific resolutions in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks to address this, the most important being resolution 1373 (link below).

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm

Edited May 11, 2011 by Dakine10

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably is not good enough.

True. But it has to be placed in the context of the last 10 years. As far as that goes killing Bin Laden pales in comparison to starting two huge wars for dubious reasons, extraordinary rendition and holding hundreds of people without charge or trial.

Noone seems to care about that of course, it's all about partisan hacks needing a gotcha moment to validate their bruised egos.

Did anyone seriously believe that Obama would magically change the way the US does its dirty business?

[nylonmac 10]

The man is dead. There's only one question left to ask: Did we really have to pollute the ocean with that piece of shite?

True - the only thing the USA is guilty of in all of this is dumping that piece of toxic waste into the sea.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

True. But it has to be placed in the context of the last 10 years. As far as that goes killing Bin Laden pales in comparison to starting two huge wars for dubious reasons, extraordinary rendition and holding hundreds of people without charge or trial.

Noone seems to care about that of course, it's all about partisan hacks needing a gotcha moment to validate their bruised egos.

Did anyone seriously believe that Obama would magically change the way the US does its dirty business?

There was a rather large percent of voters that took him on his word...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Were there? Can you read minds now too?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Were there? Can you read minds now too?

A lot of people voted for Obama in the hopes that the troops would be brought home and that Gitmo would be shut down. He said he would and the people went for it. It was a big part of the 'change' mantra.

Back then I was telling people that he was full of #######, but of course the die hards just wouldn't believe that their candidate would turn against them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A lot of people voted for Obama in the hopes that the troops would be brought home and that Gitmo would be shut down. He said he would and the people went for it. It was a big part of the 'change' mantra.

Back then I was telling people that he was full of #######, but of course the die hards just wouldn't believe that their candidate would turn against them.

So... yes?

[Zero Sum 305]

As far as entering Pakistan (assuming Pakistan did not give consent), article 51 of the UN charter would allow a sovereign state to enter a second state in cases of national defense when the latter nation is unwilling OR unable to act on the matter itself. Since Bin Laden attacked the USA in the past and continued to present a threat, he was a legal target. The UN security council issued specific resolutions in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks to address this, the most important being resolution 1373 (link below).

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm

Talk about context there. Well posted.

I hope people that are still questioning the legality of the mission based on an honest interest in such legality take the time to read this information.