thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've mentioned it in the other thread, but want to respond to some of the comments in this thread.
On it's face, the entire operation that involved the death of OBL was legal, in all respects.
Now, there are plenty of people who will argue that black is white, and white is black, and the sun rises in the West, for various reasons, but here is the common understanding of international law:
First, the countries with the biggest guns make international law. It's whatever the norms that they set.
So if I am the biggest gun then I make the law therefore what ever I do is legal....is that what you are trying to say...that might makes right?
That aside however (as I'm sure the above is a contentious statement that many will wish to argue against), the discussion so far in this thread seems to be pointing to the conclusion that it may have been "illegal" for two main reasons:
1. Violation of Paki sovereignty and
2. The death instead of capture of OBL.
First, under international law, the US is in an official "state of war"
Where in international law does it say a country can go to war against an individual?
against "those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."
So like pretty much anyone you don't like...huh?
The nation of Pakistan was harboring the primary individual responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and was well aware of the US law in this regards.
Therefore, they had already been put on notice that such harboring made them an enemy belligerent under international law.
I would like to see that particular statute that says that one nation can declare war on an individual and any nation that that individual is in becomes ipso facto a belligerent.
"Violation" of their "sovereignty" therefore was an authorized part of a internationally recognized state of war, hence legal under international law.
Isn't this what is called circular logic?
Second, another argument can be made that Pakistan does not have control over large sections of its own territory (they make that claim themselves). Since they have claimed that they can not be responsible for the areas that they do not control ("The Tribal Areas"), in which terrorists live, plan and attack Americans from, then these lawless areas can reasonable be seen as areas in which the US can operate its military forces in pursuit of terrorists and enemy combatants.
Did'nt this incident happen in an area that pakistan claims to control?
Since Pakistan seems to claim that they do not control the areas that the terrorists are operating from, and bin Laden is a terrorist, then the territory that he operated from is de facto and de jure not "Pakistani territory" and therefore "Pakistani sovereignty" was not violated.
Third, I've not yet heard any claim from the Pakistan government against the US that their sovereignty was violated. If the government of Pakistan does not recognize any violation, then the argument can be made that it was done with the active (or implicit) permission of the government, and therefore, again, no violation of Pakistani sovereignty occurred and the entire operation was legal under international law.
What is the statute in international law that says if you do not claim a violation there is none. Is that like rape does not occure unless it is reported?
There are probably a couple of other lines of argument, but suffice it to say that the flight of US Armed Forces into Pakistan is "legal" under a variety of definitions.
As for the death of OBL: I've discussed this in the "He was unarmed" thread.
He was an enemy combatant under international law. He was offered the opportunity to surrender, and declined. Deadly force was then an available and appropriate course of action of the military personnel confronting him.
We went there to execute him...that is what you do to your enemies.
We did it extra legally and we invaded another soverign country to do it. Why is it so hard for some to own that. When the rest of the arabs with guns standing between the u.s. and their resources are dead then the killing will stop.
You say that might makes right but it don't make it legal/
This operation is and was legal in so many different ways.
But, I know that some will wish to argue that the sky is actually green ....
Others will argue that your logic and facts are wrong.
Have at it.
Firm
|
RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justic... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread