Debate over Lawfulness of Bin Laden's Killing

'Osama bin Laden was not in our custody. He was an active soldier in the war that he himself declared against the United States. In war one does not have to give enemy soldiers the opportunity to surrender. For example, bin Laden did not give the occupants of the World Trade Center that opportunity (in contravention to the law of war bin Laden drew no distinction between military and civilian targets). Under the law of war enemy soldiers may surrender if they choose. But they had better be quick, clear, and explicit that they are surrendering. Bin Laden could have surrendered to us at any time over the past decade, but he chose not to. When he heard the U.S. helicopters overhead he could have rushed out of the compound with his hands in the air and thereby protected his wife and children, but he chose not to. Nor did he raise his hands when our soldiers encountered him. It was his choice, and there is no doubt that it was lawful for us to kill him.

Other al Qaeda leaders such as the Egyptian Ayman al Zawahiri and the traitor Anwar al-Aulaki may profit from bin Laden's example and decide to surrender and stand trial or they may decide to continue to wage war against the United States. It is their choice.'

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/05/debate-over-lawfulness-of-bin-ladens-killing/

I suspect this will be debated in some quarters for many years.

I'm thinking of law and historian cirles, not DU specifically (!).

what the right hand is doing. This is being charitable
on my part. Some part of the Pakistan Government had
to know Bin Laden was being granted cover. Was it the
Military?? Was it the ISI.???? Or parts of these??
It is a police state for Gosh sakes. They know and watch
people coming and going.

Now, If Some Part OF Paki Government had turned Bin Ladin
in , we would not be having this conversation.

Having said that, we were within our legal rights in war
time to pursue Bin Laden wherever we could find him.

Nations do not declare war on individuals, or non-state groups. A state of war is a specific status defined in treaties between nations and involving obligations and privileges upon the nations, and upon the members of the nations, engaged in the war. Bin Laden's "declaration of war" on the US was colorful rhetoric, but it has no meaning in terms of invoking the "laws of war" because those laws exist between nations, not between individuals. Nations may make contracts with individuals, but they cannot make treaties with individuals, and they cannot declare war on individuals.

Eric Holder justified the attack itself as a "valid national security operation" which is absolute nonsense. Bin Laden and his ragtag band posed a threat to individual American lives, but he posed no threat to the continued existence of the United States as a nation. This whole rhetorical hysteria of terrorism as a "national security" issue is fear mongering for political gain and is intensely destructive to the values upon which this nation was founded.

I don't have any bone to pick with hois killing. He chose to place himself beyond the reach of due process, and the absence of justice is his choice, not due to the decision of our government. But all of this justification about "acts of war" is just silly.

:thumbsup: