Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

[BobG]

Not outside a war. Outside a war zone, where rules of war don't apply. Look up the definitions etc. of a war - you actually can't declare a war on individuals nor on a concept.

This part bothers me a little bit.

Where was the war zone in World War II when nations on each side bombed each other's cities? And where's the war zone when you're fighting a small organization that uses assymetric warfare to counter their mismatch in military power?

And war is a state of organized conflict between two or more organized groups or parties, so I'm not sure why you say you can't declare a war on individuals (although, actually, you're declaring war against their group and OBL is merely one representative of his group, even if an important representative).

I agree using terms such as "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs", etc, is kind of absurd. Declaring war on all terrorists and and drug smugglers is too vague, as well. In fact, I think there's been a few unfocused efforts since 9/11. I just don't think the raid was one of those unfocused efforts.

 

[WhoWee]

This part bothers me a little bit.

Where was the war zone in World War II when nations on each side bombed each other's cities? And where's the war zone when you're fighting a small organization that uses assymetric warfare to counter their mismatch in military power?

And war is a state of organized conflict between two or more organized groups or parties, so I'm not sure why you say you can't declare a war on individuals (although, actually, you're declaring war against their group and OBL is merely one representative of his group, even if an important representative).

I agree using terms such as "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs", etc, is kind of absurd. Declaring war on all terrorists and and drug smugglers is too vague, as well. In fact, I think there's been a few unfocused efforts since 9/11. I just don't think the raid was one of those unfocused efforts.

Again, Bin Laden declared war on the US - probably not a good idea to ignore such a declaration or to act accordingly?
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-19/us/terror.tape.main_1_bin-international-islamic-front-osama?_s=PM:US

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."]

""And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen, who interviewed bin Laden a year earlier, believes the tape depicts a key moment for al Qaeda.

"They're going public," Bergen said. "They're saying, 'We're having this war against the United States.'"

Accompanying bin Laden on the video are Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man and inspirational ally, and military adviser Mohammad Atef, who died last November in coalition bombing.

Although a select group of Pakistani journalists and one Chinese writer were invited to witness as al Qaeda launched its jihad on the West, the event never got wide exposure because no independent videotaping was allowed."

 

[DR13]

A lot of people who are saying that killing OBL was illegal are pointing out moral reasons. Please show me a law that was broken.

 

[Nikitin]

U.S. has agreed on international laws and thus that DOES make it responsible for any breaches. The U.S. law is remarkably irrelevant. International & Pakistani law would be what matters.

If killing Osama was right or not morally, that is irrelevant. Facts:

a) There is no proof that the Pakistani government was sheltering Osama and thus the U.S. have no right to piss on Pakistani sovereignty.
b) There is wide speculation that Osama was not armed. If he wasn't armed, killing (actually it would be murdering) him would be an obvious war-crime.
c) Important means used to capture Osama included torture and other illegal & inhumane treatment of various detainees.

Let there be no illusion that the U.S. follows international laws. The US has publicly ignored resolutions or just done as it wished. And this is in public

 

[DR13]

U.S. has agreed on international laws and thus that DOES make it responsible for any breaches. The U.S. law is remarkably irrelevant. International & Pakistani law would be what matters.

If killing Osama was right or not morally, that is irrelevant. Facts:

a) There is no proof that the Pakistani government was sheltering Osama and thus the U.S. have no right to piss on Pakistani sovereignty.
b) There is wide speculation that Osama was not armed. If he wasn't armed, killing (actually it would be murdering) him would be an obvious war-crime.
c) The means used to capture Osama was torture and illegal, inhumane treatment of detainees at Guantanamo-bay.

a) Is respecting sovereignty a law or just a nice thing to do? The Pakistani Federal Govenrnment doesn't seem too upset we killed OBL. He was a mutual enemy. They should be happy he is dead. And it is obvious he had some support network (though it could have only involved the local government).
b) Cannot be conclusively proven. And even if he was unarmed, he could have been reaching for a weapon. When troops entered, he did not immediately surrender. He hid.
c) Totally different thing. The debate on Guantanamo is an entirely different topic (has to do with morality and where exactly it was performed). Even if illegal torture was used to gather intel, it is not illegal to act on that intel.

 

[WhoWee]

U.S. has agreed on international laws and thus that DOES make it responsible for any breaches. The U.S. law is remarkably irrelevant. International & Pakistani law would be what matters.

If killing Osama was right or not morally, that is irrelevant. Facts:

a) There is no proof that the Pakistani government was sheltering Osama and thus the U.S. have no right to piss on Pakistani sovereignty.

my bold
Is this a legal argument?

 

[Nikitin]

a) It is not relevant. The Pakistani sovereignty was violated without any decent proof of the Pakistani government supporting Osama. This act alone makes the entire operation illegal.
b) Oh? There are people who are saying he was not reaching for any weapon. This is where uncertainty comes into play. Based on who we trust his death could either by a valid kill or an obvious murder.
c) Well obviously it doesn't directly make the assassination in itself illegal but it was just an example of how the U.S. ignores laws when it needs too. The U.S. basically has its own oppressive secret police which operates on a global scale.

whowee yeah disrespecting the sovereignty of a neutral nation is illegal.

 

[WhoWee]

a) It is not relevant. The Pakistani sovereignty was violated without any decent proof of the Pakistani government supporting Osama. This act alone makes the entire operation illegal.
b) Oh? There are people who are saying he was not reaching for any weapon. This is where uncertainty comes into play. Based on who we trust his death could either by a valid kill or an obvious murder.
c) Well obviously it doesn't directly make the assassination in itself illegal but it was just an example of how the U.S. ignores laws when it needs too. The U.S. basically has its own oppressive secret police which operates on a global scale.

whowee yeah disrespecting the sovereignty of a neutral nation is illegal.

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN nobody in the Pakistani Government was informed of the mission?

 

[DR13]

a) It is not relevant. The Pakistani sovereignty was violated without any decent proof of the Pakistani government supporting Osama. This act alone makes the entire operation illegal.
b) Oh? There are people who are saying he was not reaching for any weapon. This is where uncertainty comes into play. Based on who we trust his death could either by a valid kill or an obvious murder.
c) Well obviously it doesn't directly make the assassination in itself illegal but it was just an example of how the U.S. ignores laws when it needs too. The U.S. basically has its own oppressive secret police which operates on a global scale.

a) Can you please cite whatever law you are referring to.
b) So like I said. You can't prove anything. It is known he did not try to surrender. It is reasonable to think a terrorist would go for a weapon.
c) Stay in the scope of this argument.

 

[Ryumast3r]

a) It is not relevant. The Pakistani sovereignty was violated without any decent proof of the Pakistani government supporting Osama. This act alone makes the entire operation illegal.
b) Oh? There are people who are saying he was not reaching for any weapon. This is where uncertainty comes into play. Based on who we trust his death could either by a valid kill or an obvious murder.
c) Well obviously it doesn't directly make the assassination in itself illegal but it was just an example of how the U.S. ignores laws when it needs too. The U.S. basically has its own oppressive secret police which operates on a global scale.

whowee yeah disrespecting the sovereignty of a neutral nation is illegal.

Pakistani sovereignty was violated then LONG LONG LOOONNG before we went into kill Osama then, via Drone attacks. They never really said anything then, which is their fault. If they cared so much, they should have said something to us instead of continuing to actively hand us over the locations of terrorists that we could kill with our drone attacks.

"Obvious Murder" is... yeah I don't even know what to put here. The man "Obviously murdered" thousands of people. He declared war. This wasn't a murder, even if he was unarmed. It was the killing of a General just like we did in WWII with Yamamoto, just like we've done throughout history to every general/military leader we thought better to kill than to capture for various reasons. Also, killing military leaders who declare war on you is legal.

It also wasn't an assassination. An assassination, by US standards (the illegal kind, not the general definition of killing someone secretly), is killing a prominent leader of a country/state. He wasn't a leader of either of those, he was the leader of a terrorist organization. Assassination in the broad sense of secrecy, (not really though... everyone knows who did it) but not in the illegal sense.

As for "Oppressive police force"... That's our SEAL team that killed him... They are part of the military. Not quite sure what you're getting into with this whole deal, since every country has special ops and even has Spy organizations like the CIA (Even Pakistan, Le Gasp).

 

[WhoWee]

whowee yeah disrespecting the sovereignty of a neutral nation is illegal.

Are you certain that Pakistan is a "neutral nation"?

 

[Nikitin]

It is well known that the sovereignty of a nation, if it is neutral and not outlawed by an universally accepted authority, must be respected. The Pakistani government was neutral and not rogue.

It is not "reasonable" to think that a terrorist would grab for weapons when he is surrounded by commandos. There is much speculation here going on.

As for the guy who claimed that killing Osama, if unarmed, wouldn't be murder: First of all there is a difference between lucking out and managing to shoot down an important enemy transport air-plane, as in the case of Yamatoto, and unlawfully murdering unarmed combatants (like what possibly happened to Osama) who do not resist. The UN human rights charter applies even to terrorists. Oh, and no the Pakistani sovereignty would not be violated by drone strikes if the Pakistani government allowed the drone strikes in the first place..

With the secret police of the US I meant the CIA. Obviously every country have shady secret service agencies, but they aren't quite at the level of the CIA which kidnaps other nations' citizens and brings them to Guantanamo bay where the prisoners are tortured.

 

[drankin]

Well, if it were illegal then prosecution would be brought against the offender by a governing body. Interestingly, there isn't a governing body. How can something be "illegal" when there is no law to be broken? There was no treaty/contract that was broken that I'm aware of.

If there is a law/treaty/contract or otherwise that was broken, we are all waiting patiently to see what it is. Anyone?

 

[WhoWee]

It is well known that the sovereignty of a nation, if it is neutral and not outlawed by an universally accepted authority, must be respected. The Pakistani government was neutral and not rogue.

It is not "reasonable" to think that a terrorist would grab for weapons when he is surrounded by commandos. There is much speculation here going on.

As for the guy who claimed that killing Osama, if unarmed, wouldn't be murder: First of all there is a difference between lucking out and managing to shoot down an important enemy transport air-plane, as in the case of Yamatoto, and unlawfully murdering unarmed combatants (like what possibly happened to Osama) who do not resist. The UN human rights charter applies even to terrorists. Oh, and no the Pakistani sovereignty would not be violated by drone strikes if the Pakistani government allowed the drone strikes in the first place..

With the secret police of the US I meant the CIA. Obviously every country have shady secret service agencies, but they aren't quite at the level of the CIA which kidnaps other nations' citizens and brings them to Guantanamo bay where the prisoners are tortured.

If it is your contention that Pakistan is neutral - I must disagree.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/May/international_May1149.xml&section=international&col=

 

[loseyourname]

This is pretty ridiculous. Bin Laden was the supreme commander directing a paramilitary organization that has been striking at U.S. targets for 20 years. He's clearly the legitimate target of a "shoot on sight" mission. Heck, I'm just a lowly company grade officer and would expect the Taliban or Al Qaeda to attempt to kill me upon positive ID even if I for some reason had no weapon on me. My very existence is an immediate threat to them. I took the job because I wanted to be a threat to them with the full realization that they can now legally kill me. Bin Laden did the same thing.

He very clearly meets the Law of Armed Conflict definition of a military objective as an unlawful combatant commander and standing ROE require only that a combatant demonstrate hostile intent to be fired upon. Bin Laden has spent his entire adult life demonstrating hostile intent. There is obvious clear precedent in targeting individual high value targets for death even when they are not armed. This is the entire purpose of snipers and air strikes and even indirect fire at times. For a target to be legitimate in this case, whether it's a person or something else, it's destruction need only hasten the end of armed conflict, which is typically what killing a leader does. The only prohibitions pertaining to individual combatants I know of after reading the entire Army Field Manual on the Law of Land Warfare is that you can't kill an enemy that has surrendered or is attempting to surrender and you can't tell him beforehand that you'll offer no quarter. Other than that, he's in play until he takes himself out of play.

 

[Ryumast3r]

It is not "reasonable" to think that a terrorist would grab for weapons when he is surrounded by commandos. There is much speculation here going on.

How isn't that reasonable? If I were a terrorist and there were a bunch of guys with guns, and I knew for sure I'd be shot (cmon... if you honestly didn't think we'd shoot the guy you must have been living in a dream), I'd reach for a gun, a knife, a wooden stick, anything.

As for the guy who claimed that killing Osama, if unarmed, wouldn't be murder: First of all there is a difference between lucking out and managing to shoot down an important enemy transport air-plane, as in the case of Yamatoto,

We knew he was in that plane. We targeted it for that reason. We'd been hunting him ever since the war started and actively tried to find/kill him.

... and unlawfully murdering unarmed combatants (like what possibly happened to Osama) who do not resist. The UN human rights charter applies even to terrorists.

A conventional terrorist yes, but a conventional terrorist Osama was not. He actively DECLARED WAR. The UN Human Rights Charter applies to everyone, yes, but so does the Army Field Manual, and the laws of combat. If he had OPENLY SURRENDERED then it would go to the UN H.R.C., but he didn't openly surrender, so the team shot him.

Oh, and no the Pakistani sovereignty would not be violated by drone strikes if the Pakistani government allowed the drone strikes in the first place..

They've argued that it violates their sovereignty.

With the secret police of the US I meant the CIA. Obviously every country have shady secret service agencies, but they aren't quite at the level of the CIA which kidnaps other nations' citizens and brings them to Guantanamo bay where the prisoners are tortured

They WERE tortured. Torture has since been ended. It wasn't really started until recently either. The CIA might be the biggest, but face it, the US also has the largest military, the single largest economy, etc. It wasn't just the CIA that worked on finding him though. It was the collaboration of many intelligence agencies and many other groups of people that finally found Osama.

Also, many other intelligence agencies do the same things the CIA does, and at the same level where they take citizens and torture them. Not saying it makes the CIA better, just saying that the CIA isn't the only one.

 

[Nikitin]

Guys you are misunderstanding the point. It is one thing ambushing a soldier and killing him, it is another thing killing a man who is safely cornered and unarmed (allegedly) like Osama was. That's called murder.

What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#International_law And US laws or regulations are completely irrelevant, there is no point in citing them.

Besides, as I said, attacking Osama's compound was illegal in the first place because it violated Pakistani sovereignty.

 

[DR13]

Guys you are misunderstanding the point. It is one thing ambushing a soldier and killing him, it is another thing killing a man who is safely cornered and unarmed (allegedly) like Osama was. That's called murder.

What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#International_law And US laws or regulations are completely irrelevant, there is no point in citing them.

Besides, as I said, attacking Osama's compound was illegal in the first place because it violated Pakistani sovereignty.

First off, I do not think we violated UN Human Rights Law. We killed a leader who declared war on us. Leaders are rarely armed (look at generals in modern armies) yet they are still targets. And again, please show me where it is illegal to violate sovereignty. Plus, OBL was a common enemy between US and Pakistan.

 

[WhoWee]

Guys you are misunderstanding the point. It is one thing ambushing a soldier and killing him, it is another thing killing a man who is safely cornered and unarmed (allegedly) like Osama was. That's called murder.

What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#International_law And US laws or regulations are completely irrelevant, there is no point in citing them.

Besides, as I said, attacking Osama's compound was illegal in the first place because it violated Pakistani sovereignty.

I'm going to re-post my earlier comment.

"Again, Bin Laden declared war on the US - probably not a good idea to ignore such a declaration or to act accordingly?
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-19/u...osama?_s=PM:US

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."]

""And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen, who interviewed bin Laden a year earlier, believes the tape depicts a key moment for al Qaeda.

"They're going public," Bergen said. "They're saying, 'We're having this war against the United States.'"

Accompanying bin Laden on the video are Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man and inspirational ally, and military adviser Mohammad Atef, who died last November in coalition bombing.

Although a select group of Pakistani journalists and one Chinese writer were invited to witness as al Qaeda launched its jihad on the West, the event never got wide exposure because no independent videotaping was allowed.""

Bin Laden not only declared war on the West - he called for another Crusade!

 

[BobG]

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN nobody in the Pakistani Government was informed of the mission?

The case they did:

Pakistan does have an air defense system, even if its main purpose is to defend against attack from India. How likely is it that drones provided surveillance of the bin Laden compound for some time during the planning for attack and that five helicopters sneak into Pakistan airspace with no one shooting anything down?

The case they didn't:

In truth, there's been a very soft arms embargo against both India and Pakistan since they conducted nuclear tests (with the emphasis on very soft) until Pakistan committed itself to joining the fight against terror; at which point it became easier for both Pakistan and India to purchase weapon systems. While both were able to obtain some weapons and Pakistan was able to even upgrade its existing air defense system, Pakistan's air defense system isn't among the strongest systems in the world (Iraq, Serbs, and Libya all had better air defense systems than Pakistan).

Additionally, Pakistan's main threat is from India and the strength of their air defense system has been deployed to protect against them; not against Afghanistan (although there have been rumors that Pakistan has or has at least intended to install an air defense system to protect the Afghanistan border against drones - having US military aid go towards protecting the border from US drone attacks would be ironic, if it actually happened).

Pakistan purchased a modern air defense system from Italy and tested it in 2010, but it hasn't come online operationally, yet.

Additionally, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015080215_osama18.html and jamming to evade air defense systems. Perhaps even the stealth helicopter part is true.

The case they did know:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4aFfZLzYXbu_7f0iiGIK2j__w8w?docId=ff7559705a6248f2a1211a3395df148e of the downed helicopter to the US rather than keep it to analyze the US's stealth helicopter technology or to allow other nations to analyze it.

Drones have been violating Pakistan's airspace for years - a condition that's seen as preferable to having Pakistan's borders violated by actual people on the ground.

There's just no way to really know.

Having Pakistan's leaders deny knowledge of the attack instead of share credit for the attack does seem like the more damaging path. It humiliates Pakistan's military - one of the few Pakistani institutions that has credibility with Pakistan residents. On the other hand, money from the US for weapons is quickly rectifying any weaknesses in Pakistan's air defenses, so any humliation of the military will be short lived.

I think sharing responsibility for the raid also carries a serious backlash for the Pakistani government and perhaps that really would be the more serious (or at least more violent) reaction.

To me, there's just too much "magic dust" used in this raid for Pakistan's denials of knowledge to be enitirely credible, but, like I said, there's just no way to really know.

 

[Al68]

Too me, there's just too much "magic dust" used in this raid for Pakistan's denials of knowledge to be enitirely credible, but, like I said, there's just no way to really know.

Whether or not Pakistan knew about this specific operation in advance, I think it's safe to say that the general issue of killing OBL in Pakistan, if we found him there, was discussed with them years ago, and probably again after President Obama took office.

Whether they consented or not is unclear, but I'm sure Pakistan's leaders were never under the delusional impression that we would not take the opportunity if we got it. I think Obama's (very good) decision to use such a small operation instead of a massive bombing was the only real surprise to Pakistan's leaders.

 

[BobG]

I also kind of wondered what the chances were of the helicopter basically crashing and no one being injured. It seems to me that if anything happens to the tail rotor, then really bad things would start to happen really quick. Those main rotors generate an awful lot of torque!

In reality, I guess helicopter crashes aren't quite as dangerous as I would have thought. Looking at the http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/Hearing-HEMS/NTSB-2009-8a-Blumen-revised-final-version.pdf (several slides down since they don't number their slides), only about 37% of helicopter crashes result in fatalities. Since 1972, 42% of occupants in a helicopter crash escape with no injuries and about 56% escape with no injuries or only minor injuries. Between '98 and '08, those percentages were about 48% and 58%.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I also kind of wondered what the chances were of the helicopter basically crashing and no one being injured. It seems to me that if anything happens to the tail rotor, then really bad things would start to happen really quick. Those main rotors generate an awful lot of torque!

In reality, I guess helicopter crashes aren't quite as dangerous as I would have thought. Looking at the http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/Hearing-HEMS/NTSB-2009-8a-Blumen-revised-final-version.pdf (several slides down since they don't number their slides), only about 37% of helicopter crashes result in fatalities. Since 1972, 42% of occupants in a helicopter crash escape with no injuries and about 56% escape with no injuries or only minor injuries. Between '98 and '08, those percentages were about 48% and 58%.

And those aren't even people trained to jump out of planes, or go through water, or roll off buildings, or be a one-man-army like the SEALs.

 

[Nikitin]

I don't understand why you keep saying that Osama was an enemy of the US? Ofcourse he was an enemy of the US, but this doesn't change the fact that killing unarmed and cornered men is murder.

It is VERY illegal to disrespect another nation's sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

bobg: why'd the US tell Pakistan everything it does? Why'd they need drones anyway to survey the compound? the US military has always had a presence in Pakistan.

I believe parts of the Pakistani government at first claimed that they cooperated with the US and assassinated Osama together. Still, the Pakistani gov officially says that their sovereignty was violated.

 

[drankin]

It is VERY illegal to disrespect another nation's sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

This doesn't apply. Please cite how it does. Pakistan was not attacked by the US. In fact, it could be said that the Charter supports the action:

Article 42

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

 

[Al68]

I don't understand why you keep saying that Osama was an enemy of the US? Ofcourse he was an enemy of the US, but this doesn't change the fact that killing unarmed and cornered men is murder.

It's an issue of semantics, not facts, whether to choose to use the word murder to mean the killing of an enemy in war. I never have, and I think historically, the definition of the word murder doesn't include such acts, regardless of circumstances. It has nothing to do with whether or not the killing is right or wrong, and like I said it's an issue of semantics, but it just seems very odd to me to refer to such an act as "murder", even under an assumption that the act is wrong.

 

[Nikitin]

Sovereignty in itself is in part defined as the permission of the governing body to do what it pleases to its territory, as long as it isn't illegal.

The US is not the governing body of Pakistan and thus it CANNOT do what it pleases. The UN itself is based on respect for state sovereignty.

 

[Evo]

This thread is repeating the same arguments over and over, people are stating opinion as fact and not supporting themselves with valid references. Closed.