Was killing bin Laden legal?

[steve2470]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/was_killing_bin_laden_legal_dfcb4ff6-1458-4820-bcc9-3cf1205fb259.html

By MJ LEE | 05/02/11 9:18 PM Updated: 05/02/11 9:30 PM

As more details of the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden surfaced Monday, some individuals suggested that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader by U.S. special forces may have violated international law.

However, human rights and civil liberties groups that have sharply criticized the Obama administration for its use of lethal force against terror suspects outside of war zones remained largely mum after the notorious bin Laden was shot by U.S. Navy SEALs in an operation that took place in Pakistan, where the U.S. is not involved in formally declared combat.

Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said his group wasn’t prepared to express an opinion “until we know more solid details about the facts of the operation.”

“There are certainly circumstances under which lethal force is justified even in a law enforcement situation far from the battlefield,” Malinowski said in an email. “But we'll have to know more about what actually happened before making a judgment.”

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Since WHEN does the US worry about legalities?

[Javaman]

3. Exactly.

it's always easier to get forgiveness that it is permission. Aka it's always easy to trash the law than it is to follow the guidelines.

[OwnedByFerrets]

30. But, only if you can buy your way out of the crime.

[Distant Observer]

11. Some times you need WRITE A LITTLE MANDATE to "make" things "Legal": No time here.

But how would WE know what the circumstances were.

We just have to believe what we are told.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Perhaps we should read what the law says:

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[msongs]

13. Germans wrote laws in the 1930's so writing the "law" automatically makes things legal right? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. How do we determine what is legal and illegal in this country?

[sinkingfeeling]

21. That's a resolution, not a law. Meaning it's from one branch of our government to another.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. I am sorry but you are mistaken. It was signed into law by the President on 9/18/01:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@R|TOM:/bss/d107query.html|

[rsmith6621]

5. Put Down That Politico Reading....

....You do understand they are a RIGHT wing organization???

[steve2470]

8. Yes, I posted this only for discussion.

I think the legality argument would only gain value on the left, not the right.

[spanone]

6. is politico legal?

[JTFrog]

7. +1 n/t

[Keith Bee]

9. WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT.....

...it rocks, baby!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

12. there has been an international warrant for OBL since 1998

but it is indeed ironic as to who requested its issue

Osama bin Laden was a wanted man well before the 9/11 attacks, before the attack on the USS Cole and before the US Embassy bombings in east Africa.

The first international warrant for his arrest was issued in April 1998 following a request not by the Americans or the Europeans, but by Colonel Gaddafi of Libya.

On March 16, 1998, five months before the al Qaeda bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Libyan Ministry of Justice named Bin Laden as the main suspect in a double murder that had taken place in the Libyan town of Sirte four years earlier.

The warrant was forwarded to Interpol in France, where it was formalised on April 15, 1998.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Bin-Laden-Gaddafi-Libyan-Leader-Issued-Arrest-Warrant-For-Bin-Laden-Well-Before-9-11/Article/201105115984158?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15984158_Bin_Laden%2C_Gaddafi%3A_Libyan_Leader_Issued_Arrest_Warrant_For_Bin_Laden_Well_Before_911

[originalpckelly]

14. That's not ironic, that's fucking hilarious.

[crickets]

15. Excellent catch. -nt

[EFerrari]

32. Wow. That's fascinating. n/t

[Renew Deal]

16. Get over it.

[SoCalDem]

17. at this point, who cares? not many, I would guess

of course republicans might, but then we all know they are full of shit

[cbdo2007]

18. Were the attacks on 9/11/01 legal??

[LynneSin]

19. In a nutshell here is your answer

Had Osama bin Laden been found and killed during the Bush years - NO

Had OSama bin Laden been found and killed during the Obama years - YES, and lay the ground work to question it because hell, we don't want to actually make Obama sound like a good guy in any way.

:eyes:

[sinkingfeeling]

20. I thought the Bush administration decided 'international laws' didn't apply to the US.

[themadstork]

22. It'll be interesting to see what details come out, and when.

At first I thought it was legal. Now I'm not as sure.

[jpak]

25. Fuck Osama Viva Obama

yup

[Chris_Texas]

26. No. Better call the cops.

[pnwmom]

27. Yes. OBL had made a video declaring war on Americans everywhere

and urging people to kill them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0502/Was-it-legal-for-the-US-commandos-to-kill-Osama-bin-Laden


The Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan compound yesterday acted within the full authority of both international and domestic law, according to US legal analysts.

As the operational leader of Al Qaeda in an ongoing conflict with the United States, Mr. bin Laden was a legitimate military target to be captured or killed at any time under the law of war, these analysts said.

“We could have killed him even if he was trying to run away. He was a lawful target,” said Scott Silliman, a law professor and executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at Duke University.

Rather than an unlawful assassination, the Navy SEALs’ assignment to “capture or kill” bin Laden was a fully authorized military mission. Bin Laden was a combatant in the war, as were members of the SEAL team.

“When all the layers are peeled away from a tactical perspective, the government did everything by the book,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law.

SNIP

[MilesColtrane]

28. Yes

[Romulox]

29. That's not how law works. What law was violated in the killing of bin Laden?

The burden of proof: on the prosecutor. :hi:

[akbacchus_BC]

31. I may be wrong, but am pretty sure he was dead a long time ago. The

guy was on dialasis, how could he keep his machine going in the mountains of Afghanistan?

I am not buying this new scenario and Muslims do not bury their dead at sea, I want to see pictures!