Saturday, May 7, 2011
Killing Osama Bin Laden - Legal?
Joe: two sides of the legal question. Personally I don’t think it’s legal by US or International law. The real politick of the situation is that the US and the Obama Administration will not be penalized. And what if Bush had done the same thing? I suppose being a terrorist is similar to the mafia, live by the sword, die by the sword. The most fascinating thing to me is the excuse ( a reason stuffed with a lie as my Sunday school teacher used to say), "I think resistance does not require a firearm." A carefully constructed and correct response in a legal way. -Bob
Initial reports from the Obama administration suggested that bin Laden was armed and shooting at U.S.
America breathed a sigh of relief and world leaders offered congratulations following the killing of Osama bin Laden on Sunday. But following conflicting accounts of the al Qaeda leader's final moments from the White House, questions are being raised about the legality of the military operation that resulted in bin Laden's death.
Initial reports from the Obama administration suggested that bin Laden was armed and shooting at U.S. personnel when he was killed. That was subsequently revised and the White House conceded that he was unarmed when he was shot by Navy SEALs.
Human rights groups, lawyers and academics have suggested, among other things, that this could violate an Executive Order that forbids the U.S. government and its employees from engaging in 'political assassination'.
The Guardian quotes Prof Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, as saying that the attack had the appearance of an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law".
Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch also tweeted: "White House still hasn't clarified: OBL "resisted" but how did he pose lethal threat to US forces on scene? Need facts."
In the face of these accusations, Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the raid on bin Laden's compound was lawful "as an act of national self-defense."
"He was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th," Holder said. "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."
Critics have questioned how bin Laden could constitute a threat to the lives of the SEALs if he was unarmed, and that he should have been taken alive.
Had bin Laden been shooting at U.S. personnel, he would easily have met the legal standard of a legitimate combat target. An unnamed official when asked if bin Laden tried to grab a weapon or physically attack a commando, told CNN that "he didn't hold up his hands and surrender."
White House spokesperson Jay Carney also took a similar line, saying "I think resistance does not require a firearm."
ABC News reports that the Obama administration has justified the operation legally by citing the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of Sept. 18, 2001, which allows the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned or committed the 9/11 attacks, as well as international law derived from treaties and customary laws of war.
Raffi Khatchadourian, writing in The New Yorker said:
The key legal question is not whether bin Laden was armed before he was killed, or even whether or not he posed an immediate “lethal threat,” but whether he was “positively identified” before the trigger was pulled, and whether Holder is accurate when he says that “there was no indication” that bin Laden was actively attempting to surrender. Those are the more relevant facts. And if there is a formal inquiry into the incident, this is what it will undoubtedly seek to establish.
At present however, such an inquiry seems to be a distant prospect. Pakistani complaints that the raid violated their sovereignty have garnered little support internationally. Bin Laden's status a reviled international terrorist means that few countries with influence are likely to press hard for action against those who brought about his end.
Posted by Michael Cohen
I’ve been a bit out of the loop for a few days but I’ve watching with almost stunned fascination the debate that has unfolded over the past few days about the legality of killing Osama bin Laden.
In fairness, part of the problem is with how badly the White House has bungled the public information part of this job. I give the White House and the President credit for the execution of this operation and the manner in which they have pursued bin Laden since taking office. But their behavior since Sunday night - and their public narrative on what happened then - has only added to the confusion.
I will forgive the President for getting some basic elements of the story wrong the night the attack happened, but the fact that John Brennan went before the cameras on Monday and offered a briefing that had key facts wrong and was corrected by White House press spokesmen Jay Carney the next day is not only embarrassing but it also fed the sense that the White House is not being honest. (Although at the same time credit must be given for correcting the record after the fact).
In a sense though, none of this should be terribly surprising. First reports on an incident like this, where you’re likely dealing with a host of contradictory eyewitness reports, are going to get some basic facts wrong. It’s a bit like a game of telephone. However, the White House should have waited before putting the whole story out and considering the sensitivity of the matter they should have gotten their facts straight. Still, while this certainly seems to have been badly handled I’m having a hard time seeing it as conspiratorial.
The problem, however, is that others hold a different view. The White House’s mistakes have led to a bizarre cottage industry of claims about what did happen – and some rather exaggerated arguments about he legal ramifications. Today for example, Glenn Greenwald argues that many people, including Democrats, are indifferent about how Osama bin Laden was killed because they just view his death as an unadulterated good – legality be damned. This is what he calls the bin Laden exception. I am sympathetic to this argument because I'm sure it accurately reflects the views of many people. But it rather clearly ignores an entirely reasonable position regarding OBL’s killing – that he was a legitimate military target and everything that happened in Pakistan on Sunday night was legal and proper.
From that perspective it is important to remember that based on the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) it is the view of the US Congress – and the President – that the US was at war with al Qaeda.
Here’s the key phrase from the AUMF:
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.
This is a legal argument that has been consistently upheld by the US Congress; by Presidents Bush and Obama, by the Supreme Court and by the United Nations.
Now I understand that some may not support this legal opinion, but it is vitally important to acknowledge that viewing bin Laden as a legitimate military target – and no different from any solider on a battlefield – is not only a completely reasonable argument, it is one that is firmly grounded in US and international law and is supported by a wide array of legal scholars both inside and outside of government. So this isn’t just a case of victor’s justice or revenge. It is legally appropriate to believe that the US had the right to go into this compound and kill Osama bin Laden, even if he wasn’t carrying a weapon.
There is of course an exception -- as there would be an exception in any battlefield engagement – was Osama trying to surrender? To date the only “evidence” that he was is a report passed along by an anonymous Pakistani intelligence officials (the same people who were either lying about OBL’s whereabouts in Paksitan or unaware of them) claiming that OBL’s daughter says he was held captured for 10 minutes and then killed. This hardly qualifies as evidence and I find remarkable that Greenwald, for one, considers it as legitimate a source as what is announced publicly by US officials. However, it should be noted that if this story is true it would be an illegal act and absolutely worthy of further investigation: and it would represent an extrajudicial execution.
The fact is, only if Osama was in the act of surrendering or had been captured and killed is there any real legal question here. Otherwise this is the legitimate killing of an appropriate military target. This is in fact, very similar to the killing of Admiral Yamamoto during WWII, an unarmed, but legitimate military target shot down by US bombers
Now the argument has also been made that after some initial armed resistance no other shots were fired at the Navy Seals thus suggesting that OBL wasn’t resisting. That is Monday morning quarterbacking. There is simply no way for the US troops involved in this engagement to know that resistance had ended; that they had taken fire suggested that they were being violently opposed and they every reason to fear further attack. Thus any individual in the compound would likely – and rightly - have been considered a threat.
Second, the fact that Osama didn’t have a weapon is irrelevant. A soldier can be killed on the battlefield even if they are unarmed. Osama is no different. Also the fact that soldiers allegedly saw him pop his head out and retreat deeper into his compound is, in fact, an act of resistance and again makes him a legitimate target.
There is one issue here – was Osama trying to surrender? Were his arms raised in the air; was he waving a white flag etc? If not, the US Navy Seals in question had every legal right to kill him.
Lastly, one of the further problems with this debate is we also get into the question of second guessing decision made by soldiers on the ground, in highly stressful situations. Should the Seals have given bin Laden an opportunity to surrender? Did they misread his actions coming into his bedroom? Perhaps, but I’m not sure any of us are in a position to say otherwise or question with any veracity on the ground decision-making during a military engagement. That these troops were instructed to kill bin Laden - and only capture him if he surrendered - is not only not suspicious, it's completely appropriate. After all, he was a legitimate military target. That the US soldiers encountered initial resistance and retreat of that target only increased the likelihood that he would be killed on the spot.
The very fact that so many of us are gleeful over the fact that this monster is dead doesn’t change any of those basic facts or obviate the legality of what happened. Osama got what he deserved; both legally and morally.