Please cite the law that Obama Violated when He Had Bin Laden Killed

[Yavin4]

Please cite the law that he violated. Thank you.

[TimLighter]

1. Who are you asking, Omar Bin Laden?

I doubt that he reads this forum. But he'a gonna sue our asses off big time!

*Snicker* *Guffaw*

[slackmaster]

2. Littering

And creating a nuisance.

[JuniperLea]

27. Dumping toxic waste into our oceans...

I'm sure it's been taken care of by now, however.

[thereismore]

36. Oh jeez, a good one! nt

[truedelphi]

3. First of all, did he have Usama killed?

After the fact, he says that he did.

But it was actually Panetta that supposedly issued the orders.

And BTW, and FWIW, one reason that I believe that Bhutto bit the dust - in her David Frost interview of Autumn 2007, she mentions how Usama was already dead.

[elleng]

4. '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/... /

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. The most important one: The I Don't Like It Statute nt

[howard112211]

6. We don't know, until we know what exactly happened.

[JoePhilly]

64. We dropped in SEALs, they were fired on, OBL did not

drop to the ground and surrender.

He had claimed he was responsible for 9/11. Claimed he wanted to do it again. Called on his followers to do the same.

If you kill 3000+ Americans, claim you did it, and then claim you will kill more if given the chance. You might be better off claiming your right to remain SILENT.

[EFerrari]

7. Have you seen this from the former president of the NLG?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1081002&mesg_id=1081002

[ProSense]

9. In which

<...>

The United States disavowed the use of extrajudicial killings under President Gerald Ford. After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed in 1975 that the CIA had been involved in several murders or attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Every succeeding president until George W. Bush renewed that order. However, the Clinton administration targeted Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but narrowly missed him.

<...>

...Cohn cites this executive order:

(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

What does that have to do with killing a terrorist?

"However, the Clinton administration targeted Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but narrowly missed him."

So the fact that Clinton "narrowly missed him" is excusable?

[ixion]

8. If the roles were reversed, do you think the US would be okay with

the Pakistani military making an unannounced raid?

No, they would not be at all.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. There was an excellent post using Cuba & Posada here on DU last night along those lines

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1077098

[JuniperLea]

31. If roles were reversed...

It would appear we were the ones harboring a deadly, wanted terrorist.

The Pakistani people are currently seeking answers from their government as to why they are a) incompetent, or b) harboring and apparently assisting a terrorist. They are not happy. I would imagine, roles reversed, we would feel exactly the same way.

[ixion]

37. While there is truth in your statement, it is off topic

If the Pakistani military made an unannounced raid on US soil, how would the US react to Pakistan?

And we ARE harboring a whole group of terrorists here in the US. Why do you think the neocons don't travel?

[JuniperLea]

39. The US Gov, or the people?

If the exact situation were reversed, this "people" would be doing exactly what the Pakistani people are doing... questioning why my government was harboring a terrorist.

Do you understand why Ford pardoned Nixon? I'm betting no.

[ixion]

85. No, the people would be outraged at being 'attacked'

is my thinking.

I'm not a political beast, really, so I didn't approve of Ford pardoning Nixon, but I understand the tactical reasons he did so, even though I don't agree with them.

[JuniperLea]

89. The people of Pakistan weren't attacked...

This was not Shock and Awe, this was a very small mission in a big city. There was no collateral damage.

I still think most of us would react just as the Pakistani people have reacted... with a giant WTF? Why the hell didn't my country know about this? Why were we in cahoots with this seclusion? Or are we just that inept?

I didn't agree with Ford's pardon either, but understood it well... and I get that the same reasoning applies to any POTUS or former POTUS.

[ixion]

91. You may be right about the reaction...

I guess it would depend on many different factors.

Would I personally be shocked? Not at all. I believe this country harbors terrorists that it favors (E.g. WWII Nazi Scientists, and bin Laden at one point).

[JuniperLea]

94. No doubt...

"We" aren't angels in this regard, not by a long shot!

[Warren DeMontague]

121. So we're supposed to stay on topic?

Maybe start by actually answering the question in the OP, then.

You can't really complain that someone's reply to your off-topic reply was "off topic".

[Wait Wut]

50. The comparisons are idiotic.

If the roles were reversed, and some RW Christian Extremist murdered thousands of Pakistanis the US would kill the fucker, with or without a trial. We'd apologize to Pakistan and send them some more money. We'd find the supporters and lock them up for eternity. That's what we do with mass murderers. If they flinch when being arrested, we shoot them.

If, for some bizarre, totally unbelievable reason, the US refused to eradicate this virus, I would send the Pakistani military money for plane tickets to come and take care of it themselves. My patriotic ass would be defending them until I die.

/endrant

[stevenleser]

127. Pakistan signed an agreement agreeing to this back in 2001-2002.

If you need a link, let me know.

[Liberal Communist]

10. Presumption of innocence

Ever heard of the concept called presumption of innocence? To this day, bin Laden has not been proven guilty of a single criminal act. That of course doesn't mean I am sorry for him, he was a bastard - butcher of the innocent, reactionary fanatic and, after all, servant of imperialism and neocolonialism. I support the Northern Alliance and the true hero of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Massoud.

P.S. A very good article (http://tinyurl.com/3b7n5a) written by former British Foreign Minister, Robin Cook, less than a month before his death.

[ProSense]

15. "doesn't mean I am sorry for him, he was a bastard - butcher of the innocent"

So much for "presumption of innocence."

Welcome to DU!

[EOTE]

22. Presumption of innocence is a legal tool.

One can firmly believe in the presumption of innocence while already having a particular person convicted in their own mind. Just because I'm quite certain that someone is guilty of something does not mean that I want to dismantle the system that would give them a fair trial.

[Romulox]

23. Presumption of innocence is a civil concept*, with no application on a battle field.

Soldiers do not have a right to a trial before being shot on a battlefield, for example. It stands to reason, therefore, that irregular combatants can't gain such a right by adhering to a lower standard of conduct (e.g. not openly wearing uniforms.)


(* "civil" as opposed to "martial", rather than "civil" as opposed to "criminal".)

[EOTE]

33. I wasn't suggesting that it's applicable to the battle field.

But certainly international law applies when it comes to assassination.

[Romulox]

43. Do you have a specific citation to the specifically applicable international law?

Something can be morally incorrect while remaining perfectly legal. And vice versa.

[EOTE]

61. Well, U.S. law, anyway

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/760110e.htm#assassination

Moreover, I'm more interested in what the ramifications would be if this WERE legal. Do we have the ability to go into any sovereign country to take out people who we believe to be guilty of certain crimes? If you take this to its logical extreme, it's insanely scary. Yet people suggest that it's OK in just this one case. We don't have the ability to pick and choose when extreme examples will be used.

[ProSense]

69. What exactly are you citing?

"(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

What does that have to do with killing a terrorist?

[EOTE]

71. Killing a terrorist in a sovereign land.

As much as you'd like to believe it the case, we can't just go into sovereign countries to kill people whom we believe to be guilty of crimes whenever we'd like. Funny how that works.

[ProSense]

76. What? n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

79. What?

That's a question not a statement. What does the EO have to do with "killing a terrorist in a sovereign land"?

[EOTE]

81. "What?" is a question. What I said (and what you were responding to) was a statement.

Now that you've got a better idea of what constitutes a statement and a question, do you care to actually respond to what I said? Probably not.

[ProSense]

84. You

first, because "killing a terrorist in a sovereign land" has nothing to do with the EO and didn't address the question.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[pitohui]

98. you don't have the ability to pick and choose? well, i do, it's called using my brain

i don't understand these people who don't have an ability to pick and choose, that seems like it would be a terrible disability to have

god or evolution or darwin or who-the-eff-ever gave you a head to use for something besides a hatrack

pakistan had almost 10 years to make this right, and they couldn't be arsed to do it, at some point, somebody has to get off the couch and do something about a mass murderer sitting at his ease laughing his ass off with his multiple fuck partners in a million dollar compound

if there was some technical illegality, who the fuck cares, it PALES next to pakistan's aiding and abetting after the fact of a mass murderer

aiding and abetting multiple murder is a felony in every nation in the world, a serious felony

IF obama broke a law...and i say IF...it was a case like martin luther king etc. where obeying the law was more offensive to human decency than breaking the law

[rfranklin]

25. It's only the foundation of our legal system...

But it's a hazy area when it comes to assassinating foreign leaders and that's even a stretch in the case of OBL since he wasn't the leader of a country...

In Executive Order 12333, Reagan even expanded the prohibition slightly: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The prohibition remains in effect because no subsequent president has revoked it.

http://hir.harvard.edu/leadership/on-the-offensive

The article has a lot of background.

[ProSense]

26. Actually,

I was just playing along.

"One can firmly believe in the presumption of innocence while already having a particular person convicted in their own mind."

Sure, and how many people suspected bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, was innocent?

He was a terrorist not a suspected bank robber.

[rfranklin]

28. I think the question is, which crimes was he actually guilty of?

And, even better, who were his accomplices? Like the 9/11 Commission, there was just too much that was investigated.

[ProSense]

35. Which

crime was he guilty of when Clinton lobbed a bomb at him?

It's fair to say that if he was worthy of a bomb before 9/11, he was deserving of the fate he met.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yavin4]

41. The Crimes for Which He Took Credit For On Tape

The first attack on the WTC, the bombing of the embassy in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, 9/11, and several other attacks that were foiled.

OBL was wanted ever since 1998, and he never, not once, declared his innocence.

[EOTE]

44. Osama also denied being involved in the 9/11 attacks on tape.

Does that tape not count? Or do only tapes where he admits to attacks count? I have no doubt that OBL was a horrible, awful human being. But even the most horrible of people are worthy of due process.

[ProSense]

54. Osama

is a liar?

Poor misunderstood bin Laden.

"I have no doubt that OBL was a horrible, awful human being."

Why was he a "horrible, awful human being"?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Yavin4]

59. Okay. Throw Out 9/11.

What about the first WTC attacks. The embassy bombing in Africa. The USS Cole attacks.

Are those enough for you?

[EOTE]

62. Enough for me to what?

Believe that he's an awful man who should be tried and killed as a result of that trial? Yep.

[Bonobo]

102. If you admit they are crimes and if you claim it was a confession, then

surely you must accept that crimes are supposed to be tried in a court of some kind?

[EOTE]

30. Does that matter?

Not in the least. There's no system of justice that says that trials aren't required if you're REALLY sure that the guy did it.

[ProSense]

38. Yes, it does matter

because the hypotheticals (he's dead) ignore the facts (rules of war and his ongoing terrorist activities) and introduce other unrelated claims (political assassination, murder, Nazi trials, Geneva Convention) to try to twist this into something it was not: illegal.

[EOTE]

40. Assassination is illegal, period.

And individuals don't have the ability to declare war, not from a legal standpoint. And OBL had been pretty much effectively neutered this past 10 years or so. You can't assassinate someone and THEN point out to all the horrible deeds that they were planning to do (the evidence of which, we obtained from the assassination) as justification. That's what trials are for.

[ProSense]

47. "Assassination is illegal, period."

Since no one is arguing otherwise, can you dispense with the straw man?

It was not an assassination and simply repeating it doesn't make it so.

If that's the case every terrorist killed is an "assassination."

People are trying to argue morality based on semantics.

[EOTE]

52. No administration official has ever suggested that the order was anything other than to kill.

That has been the narrative from minute one. And considering that an individual does not have the ability to declare war and that we did this in a sovereign country, I don't see how it could be anything else. Are you suggesting that we can go into any sovereign country to kill people we believe are behind certain crimes?

[ProSense]

56. So? n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

60. Thanks

Sometimes short and to the point is most effective.

[stevenleser]

128. Please cite applicable international law that says we could not be at war with Al Qaeda. You can't.

Specifically because international law accounts for situations like these and that you can be at war with a group like Al Qaeda and like the Barbary pirates, or, for that matter, like the Tea Party or Palestinian Authority.

[coalition_unwilling]

74. We are all guilty of something. That does not mean we should

all (or any one of us, for that matter) be extra-judicially executed.

[EOTE]

75. You won't hear me argue against that. NT

[coalition_unwilling]

78. Thanks. I specialize in pronouncements from the Department of the

Obvious :)

[JTFrog]

67. .

:spray:

[JuniperLea]

34. Not only did he admit guilt...

He congratulate himself and his cohorts for the dastardly deed, and promised more. Sorta different... really.

[markpkessinger]

73. Presumption of innocence applies to accused persons on U.S. Soil

...not to enemy combatants in foreign countries.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Which jurisdiction are you asking about?

There are questions of sovereignty violations under international law. Those are independent of violations of Pakistani law which I doubt anyone here could address. There are also claims by the administration of self defense under international law

Which venue are you inquiring about?

[Romulox]

24. Jurisdiction is always the first question in law. What jurisdiction applies?

:shrug:

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. If you believe there is nothing illegal about going into a country without permission

then open the borders and give full amnesty to everyone here "illegally".

Pick one or the other.

[JaneQPublic]

16. So the drone missions are illegal, too? (nt)

[AlabamaLibrul]

17. Maybe, probably, but I'm not a lawyer. I would imagine most don't like their airspace being violated

end of message

[hardcover]

20. You are forgetting. We had permission.

[Tx4obama]

21. There was permission.

Bush made a deal with the previous Pakistani president that allowed the USA to go into Pakistan to 'get' Bin Laden.
Therefore Obama/USA had permission to cross the border and do what they did.

[tekisui]

82. That may be true. I haven't seen that confirmed by anyone in the US.

Whether that agreement took place, if it was still good or if the current Pakistani government even knew about it.

[Igel]

14. Most cite "international law."

International law, of course, is pretty much a chimera.

There are treaties and the like that have texts. You read them and you think you know what they mean; you look at the history and you find out what those who created and signed them believed them to mean.

Then there's how they're implemented: Anything that they can be interpreted to mean in the light of later semantic shifts, revised laws elsewhere, or anything else that somebody can convince politicians is meaningful is precisely what they mean. Although "precise" is exactly the wrong word.

Sometimes the interpretation requires ignoring the clear intent and text of the treaty. Take the business with bombing a civilian target. It's clear: If they're being used by the military, if they're housing military, then they're not civilian. Yet "international law" is usually invoked to say that if you house a battalion of troops, a dozen tanks, and a SCUD missile launcher inside a religious compound that covers an acre that it's still civilian if you bomb the soldiers and some shrapnel scraps the fresco of the religious building in the compound. (As long as it's one of the privileged religions. If it's not, then bomb the sucker into the dark ages where it belongs.)

Sometimes you need to stretch the definition. So a POW is supposed to belong to a nation's army and be in uniform. But if you need to, you can consider a group to be a nation and civilian clothes to be a uniform--what's important is that they're combatants, at some point. As long as they're the right people. Then they're clearly soldiers, and as such are obligatorily POWs if captured. At other times, if you're armed and fighting for a recognized government you're not a soldier even during combat if you lack the right training or a uniform--or even if you're in a uniform, as long as you don't have the right identification.

Then there's the funny "international law" that consists in generalizing over those and only those nations' laws that support your point of view. It's not even "international majority opinion" (where "majority refers to number of countries, not population), much less "international consensus." Instead because a dozen countries that are considered more enlightened by the speaker considers X to be illegal, international law says it's illegal.

To say Obama broke the "law" by having UBL killed will almost certainly require giving some status to UBL that the text would have trouble justifying. Another example of justification by faith, I guess.

So "international law" is very often to public advocates what words were to Humpty-Dumpty: "When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

[Romulox]

29. Basically, the inability to cite any specific provision of any specific law

(or even an appeal to some sort of international common law,) underscores the point that most of the "illegality" proponents don't understand how "the law" works; "the law" must always flow from some source of authority, such that the first question is always one of which authority's law has been violated, and just what the basis of jurisdiction is.

[Yavin4]

45. THANK YOU. Correct Answer

Obama broke no law.

[EFerrari]

48. Or maybe you're referring to your ability to dance away from speciific citations

when you are presented with them.

[Romulox]

55. The plain language of your citation, namely the Third Geneva Convention, doesn't support your case

That's the only citation you've provided. I've discussed its inapplicability with you extensively. If we ultimately disagree, that's OK, but it's odd to hear you claim your arguments haven't been addressed.

[msanthrope]

123. I think the OP's point is that there are no citations to dance away from. n/t

[msanthrope]

124. An excellent post. n/t

[DFW]

18. According to Cheney and Bush:

It was the Law of Probability

[SlimJimmy]

19. Only the US Congress can grant letters of Marque and Reprisal.

The President is not authorized to do so on his own. Article One Section 8 of the US Constitution.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. Interesting. Does anyone on DU believe that this Article still applies, though?

[poli_ticks]

49. Why would it no longer apply?

Is there a Constitutional Amendment that overrides it?

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....


There is also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution


So, was there a declaration of war against Pakistan? Did the Congress authorize US military forces to engage in war-like activities in Pakistan?

And btw, I have a feeling that most people who oppose the War on Terror, and US Imperialism abroad (which is what caused the reaction of islamic terrorism in the first place) view the US Congress as complicit in all this illegality. "Separation of powers" has failed. The US Congress has apparently decided that its interests lie not in jealously guarding its powers and prerogatives from the depradations of the Executive branch, but in getting their @sses reelected, and perhaps making BIG BUCK$$$ as lobbyists and boardmembers of corporations after the voters eventually toss them out.

[ProSense]

46. So bin Laden was a pirate?

Take it away kooky Ron Paul: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (PDF)

<...>

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

Like I said, Ron Paul isn't anti-war, he's anti government. He would support mercenaries and pirates if he could.

Of course Paul is now claiming he'd never kill bin Laden (video)

Sane Congressional authorization (PDF)

[SlimJimmy]

109. A pirate? Of course not. But letters of Marque and Reprisal may be

used against any enemy of the United States. Ron Paul might be crazy, but he was actually on the right track that time. That article also gives the Congress the power to declare war.

[ProSense]

134. " Ron Paul might be crazy, but he was actually on the right track that time."

So you're saying the sane way to pursue bin Laden was to give Bush the authority to send wingnut mercenaries ("privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require") to capture/kill suspected terrorists ("for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator"), actually Muslims, to secure the bounty?

Ron Paul is a lunatic.

[coalition_unwilling]

80. The U.S.Constitution is so 20th Century - n/t

[stevenleser]

129. That does not apply to situations where we are already at war with someone. n/t

[StarburstClock]

51. There are laws?

Laws stopped being adhered to a long time ago by the elite. Please cite why you think laws should be followed, starting with the laws establishing torture camps.

[SoDesuKa]

53. Due Process

Persons accused of wrongdoing have a range of rights under our Constitution. The president can't waive those rights by declaring a wrongdoer an enemy of the state.

The notion that bin Laden declared war on the United States is novel and fanciful. Outlaw groups can no more declare war than they can sign treaties. The idea that bin Laden was the commander of some army is silly. He was a criminal.

Criminals have rights! Even unpopular criminals have rights, such as the right to a fair trial, a right to confront their accusers, etc. . . . It's in our Constitution, it's who we are.

[Yavin4]

65. U.S. Criminal Justice Laws Have No Jurisdiction in this Case

They don't.

[SoDesuKa]

93. US Constitution

The United States Constitution does indeed regulate what the president can order his subordinates to do. He may not abrogate the due process provisions of the fifth amendment.

Bin Laden was no more a soldier than he was an astronaut. States declare war; groups of individuals don't. He was a criminal, and entitled to the protections of the fifth amendment.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

92. Agreed.

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp?

[jberryhill]

63. The odds of getting an actual citation on DU are about nil

As demonstrated in this thread you are probably going to have to define the word "cite" to those unfamiliar with it.

[Yavin4]

66. Exactly.

If you're going to say that Obama broke the law when he had OBL killed, then cite the law. I've yet to see a single posting citing such a law.

[Bluebear]

100. How rude and condescending can you get?

[jberryhill]

106. Much more than that, I assure you

[phleshdef]

115. LOL. My kinda guy. nt.

[gratuitous]

68. Article VI of the Constitution

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. is a signatory, Sections 3 through 11. The Fifth Amendment (seeing as how we're not at war, as defined by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution). That should be enough to get the sophistry started, methinks.

[meow mix]

70. lol, no good answers just a lot of hand wringing

:rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

103. I'll be watching for your rofl smiley when the next republican president

starts having political enemies killed after deeming them "terrorists."

[tekisui]

72. The most on point is Executive Order 12333

2.11Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#2.11

This is an EO, so it isn't legislation from Congress, but it has not been overruled or done away with under a later EO. It stands as law.

Under international law it there is no law exactly on point outlawing targeted killings of those deemed a threat to peace and security.

The remaining question is the sovereignty of Pakistan and whether they gave us implicit or expressed permission, or if it was a true violation. There have been mixed reports on this.

The question I have though is on persons other than bin Laden. When do we have a right, and by what standard, do we label someone a terrorist that can be executed without a trial. Obama has claimed the power to target al-Awlaki and NATO/US has targeted Gaddafi. Mullah Omar and al-Zawahiri are also considered fair targets. Who else? When? Where?

These are serious questions that we need to sort out.

[coalition_unwilling]

83. "Sort out" is so 20th Century. We are now in the "Wing It" Millenium. - n/t

[Yavin4]

88. The Executive Order 2.11 Means Other Heads of State, Not Rogue Terrorist

But even if you want to follow the letter of the law, then Obama should be imprisoned for killing that Somali pirate which also makes no sense.

If EO 2.11 were used in court to impeach Obama, it'd lose.


Obama broke no law.

[tekisui]

90. That is not necessarily the definition of assassination used.

The problem is that there is no clear uniform definition for assassination or terrorism. Assassination is also used for political figures and public figures.

This is what matters. No one in Congress would try to impeach Obama for this act. Just as Congress was unwilling to impeach Bush for his much more egregious war crimes. Ever modern US president has either come very close or violate various international laws, but that doesn't mean there is precedent for prosecution. Or political will.

The US gets to act like the world's police and enforcer and acts largely with impunity, regardless of how disproportionate our actions are.

I have no interest in Obama being charged with a crime and no problem with OBL being dead.

What I have a serious interest in is where are we now? What is the precedent? Who can we target and when and why and where?

These are left unanswered. I would like to see Congress speak to exactly what powers the President has in this regard.

[dorkulon]

87. Amazing how quickly Democrats have embrace the Global War on Terror doctrine now that the shoe's on

the other foot. Amazing and sad.

[ima_sinnic]

95. "Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict"

May 10, 2011
Why It Violated International Law
Assassinating Bin Laden

By MARJORIE COHN

When he announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed by a Navy Seal team in Pakistan, President Barack Obama said, "Justice has been done." Mr. Obama misused the word "justice" when he made that statement. He should have said, "Retaliation has been accomplished." A former professor of constitutional law should know the difference between those two concepts. The word "justice" implies an act of applying or upholding the law.

Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law. Also called political assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions. These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework.

Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that "extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war." The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions.

more- http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn05102011.html

Marjorie Cohn is a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, past president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her latest book is "The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse”" (NYU Press).

You're free to ignore it since it was under Obama's authority and OBL was a very very bad man (so apparently lawlessness is okay in this "extraordinary" situation), but you asked and there is the answer.

[Yavin4]

96. So, Where's The Exact Statute?

Where's the citation? I see an opinion, but I don't see a law quoted. I read the article, but I don't see a single law cited.

If you are going to accuse someone of committing a crime, then you need to cite the governing jurisdiction, the prevailing law, and the statute.

[ima_sinnic]

97. I said you're free to ignore it

If you're really so curious, you can delve into it.
Whatever gets you through the night.

Next time we have a republican president, though, I don't want to hear anybody screaming about how "illegal" it is for that president to order people killed that he or she considers "enemies" with no trial, judge, or jury (like they do in banana republics). Just think of all those political enemies who can be deemed "terrorists"!

[Maat]

99. Professor Cohn is referring to international law.

There is no international statute under which the U.S. operates. We are a sovereign nation, and the pertinent statutes are FEDERAL, not international (so one cannot be cited for your convenience). We abide by international law via treaties, which, after ratification by the Senate, become LAW.

This is the individual (the United Nations Special Rapporteur)who interprets the international law, as observed by individual nations via the ratified treaties.

I know Professor Cohn; she is a friend of a friend. Her opinions, writings and commentary are simply something that you can take to the bank.

There is no question that this killing was ILLEGAL; the question is who is going to enforce the law. The U.S. is too big a bully for such enforcement to occur.

But, hey, don't let international law and the opinion of one of the best law professors in the land (she is a former president of the National Lawyer's Guild) stop you from your adoration of the Great One (who is apparently above the law).

[Yavin4]

113. "There is no international statute under which the U.S. operates."

Thank you for proving my point.

[Maat]

118. He broke international law because of the treaties we signed.

It does not have to be a statute to be the law. Law can created via statute, treaty and case precedent.

For example, "Roe v. Wade" is the law of the land. It isn't a statute; it's a court decision (holding).

Treaties are the law of the land, but are not statutes; you break the law if you violate them.

I'm not going to explain any further. If you don't get my point, then you need to take a civics or basic law class.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. 3rd Geneva Convention, Article 13, if bin Laden was "in the power of" the US troops:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:<[br />(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
...

Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

It hinges on whether bin Laden was in the power of the troops at the time he was shot. The Convention doesn't say he had to have explicitly asked to surrender, but, assuming he didn't, that would be in the favour of arguing the troops could not assume he was in their power yet. However, since they managed to shoot his wife without killing her, that may indicate that the situation was such that they did not have to resort to killing him either. In practice, they can probably say "we couldn't see clearly whether he was armed, and since he was known to use guns, we couldn't take the risk".

[Yavin4]

111. So, Under What Jurisdiction Is The Geneva Convention Enforced?

Even if it is enforced, there is no clear violation of the statute. None. The SEALs are allowed to defend themselves in combat, and this was a combat situation.

Sorry, try again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. Ratified by the US, so the US must enforce it for itself

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument

Why should I try again? I already won. I didn't say it was 'clear', I said it hinges on whether bin Laden was in the power of the troops. You seem to be sticking your fingers in your ears at any serious attempt to answer your OP. I think it's 'clear' you didn't seriously want an answer, just an opportunity to contradict anything anyone else says.

What a waste of a thread, and our time.

[Bluebear]

101. I think you mistook DU for the library reference desk or Ask Jeeves again.

:hi:

[backscatter712]

104. PWB - being President While Black... n/t

[ima_sinnic]

105. gee, the "race card," how clever! that'll shut everybody up about this, won't it?

sheesh!
what does "being black" have to do with anything?

by the way, when a republican president starts ordering executions of political enemies he or she has deemed "terrorists," I guess you won't mind? Or will the illegality of that somehow be related to that person's race also?

[bluestate10]

107. None. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. I'm glad the bastard is gone too.. but it is disingenuous to pretend that it was legal

Never mind comparisons to the Iraqis sending in some one to kill George W. Bush - Let's say Canada or the U.K. or some other friendly allied country sent in a team to execute a known but common serial killer deep inside the United States - let's even say that the person was certainly guilty. Let's even say he had been convicted in a legal court of law (which bin Laden was not) - But let's also say that they did so without permission of the U.S. authorities. This would be a violation of sovereignty as universally recognized by international law. Furthermore, this is a violation of every recognized form of due process. Like it or not, the late Osama bin Laden was never convicted of anything and I suspect that doing would have been quite complicated. But of course, I do believe that Osama bin Laden was an evil man and a terrorist who was directly and personally deeply involved in the September 11 massacre. But that is besides the point.

I'm glad that Osama bin Laden is dead. And I'm willing to grant a one time only exception to respecting international law and the norms of due process. Had I been in President Obama's position, I would have done the same. But it is ludicrous to claim this was not blatantly illegal and it is preposterous to claim that there is no risk of establishing a dangerous precedent. Even more I fear that these events have a very real risk of promoting a dangerous appetite for jingoistic attitudes - even within the Democratic Party. With such attitudes dominating both parties America risk being lead down a perilous and self-destructive course without the normal constraints of checks on power.

[Yavin4]

112. Again, If It's Illegal

Cite the statute. Also, there's really no such thing as international law. We are a sovereign nation, and we are allowed to act in our self defense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. you have been provided that information above..listen it was illegal

you have already been provided with sources above regarding that matter. Frankly, I suspect even you know it was illegal. Everyone does regardless what they say. Like I said, I'm glad bin Laden is dead. I am willing to put aside the issue of legality in this one time only exception. Still there is no point lying about it or being looney about the whole matter and trying to argue the preposterous. It only invites ridicule. And yes there is something called international law which the U.S. frequently cites when it is in its own interest to do so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. So, you've resorted to channeling Dubya, have you?

Have you no shame, sir? Is a Republican talking point really worth repeating on DU?

[ima_sinnic]

122. as signatories to treaties, we are bound by those treaties

being a "sovereign nation" does not absolve us from upholding our international agreements. Do we sign them with fingers crossed behind our back? We can do whatever the hell we want, including upending more than 400 years of RULE BY LAW and executing people without trial? Hey, let's go back to lynch mobs -- that was a groovy solution to grievances.

"There's really no such thing as international law" -- er, um ... :rofl:
I mean, yeah, whatever you say :eyes:

[sibelian]

133. Ah, so you asked for the citation so that tou could handwave it when it appeared?

Hint: if there's no such thing as International Law then there's no such thing as being "allowed" to defend yourself. Allowed by whom, exactly?

[stevenleser]

130. The UN doesnt think it is illegal, no one thinks it is illegal globally except a small group of US

progressives. Even most US Progressives, like me, agree this was legal.

At what point do you realize you are wrong? I understand that appeals to authority or to popularity only go so far, but it ought to give you pause.

[jmowreader]

119. Obviously the sacred Republican law...

that says Democrats are to be soft on terror.

[joshcryer]

120. 134 posts, not one fucking citation.

This thread was a waste of fucking time. Holy.shit.

[msanthrope]

125. No--this thread is NOT a waste of time.

It is a testament to the limits of poutrage, and instructive to all as to what to do when faced with the moralizing of the PL.

Ask for the citation.

[Yavin4]

126. Exactly

If you accuse someone of a crime, then cite the statute that was violated.

[sibelian]

132. post 108.

Did you miss it? I don't see it refuted.

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. See the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions

see also rulings of the US Supreme Court touching on matters relating to international law re jus cogens (jus cogens being a set of internationally accepted norms from which states may not derogate; among these is the prohibition of extrajudicial killing). See also Alejandre v Republic of Cuba, US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which the judge in his opinion on the case says:

The ban on extrajudicial killing thus rises to the level of jus cogens, a norm of international law so fundamental that it is binding on all members of the world community. See de Sanchez v. Banco Central de Nicaragua, 770 F.2d 1385, 1397 (5th Cir.1985)