• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Was Bin Laden killing legal?

WFU03 said:
Come on, seriously? It doesn't exist like many people think because it has a completely different structure than domestic laws and doesn't have nearly as effective enforcement. That being said, only a small minority of scholars would argue that it doesn't exist. Even some of the most extreme scholars would say that treaty law is definitely law.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, I think we are agreeing here. I am speaking in hyperbole. It definitely exists, just not in the way most other law exists.
 
Go said:
Kind of like the Rule against Perpetuity?
Click to expand...

side note, 100% derail thread post, but I'm gonna do it anyway:

I have a client who is about 100 years old, but was a lawyer for like 6 months in the 70s. Went to law school, the whole 9, just only practice for like 60 months. He is old now and sued a restaurant because he slipped and fell.

In his deposition, I joked about him being a lawyer. As we were wrapping it up, the question "Anything else?" was asked, and I joked "Not unless you want to give us the Rule Against Perpetuities." He rattled it off flawlessly. It was impressive.
 
Too many lawyers on these boards, who are just stirring up a tempest in a tea pot. That's what lawyers often do (I understand). The reality is, this organization declared war on the United States, committed acts of war against the United States, and was in the process of planning additional acts of war against the United States. The leader of this organization was found in his hideout together with weapons, and his people in the hideout were shooting and trying to kill Americans. I leave aside the fact that he had always vowed never to be taken alive and had a history of surprising and killing people by irrationally and unexpectedly blowing things up. Furthermore, it was dark. The leader was justifiably and deservedly killed.

The rest is international ambulance chasing.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
I know nothing about international law, so I am not going to get involved in this one, but as someone who deals with the Rule Against Perpetuities on almost a daily basis and spent a good part of 8 hours researching the 1954 version of the RAP in Georgia, it totally exists (and totally sucks).
Click to expand...

How?
 
As I said on the other thread, OBL was a federally indicted murder suspect. Lurking on the third floor of a miltary-style compound while your lackeys spray automatic fire from the first two floors constitutes "resisting arrest," especially given the violent rhetoric to never be taken alive.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
As I said on the other thread, OBL was a federally indicted murder suspect. Lurking on the third floor of a miltary-style compound while your lackeys spray automatic fire from the first two floors constitutes "resisting arrest," especially given the violent rhetoric to never be taken alive.
Click to expand...

I missed this account. Can you link it?
 
Maureen Dowd: Killing Evil Doesn’t Make Us Evil

Quote:
------------
I leave it to subtler minds to parse the distinction between what is just and what is justified...

...Morally and operationally, this was counterterrorism at its finest.

We have nothing to apologize for.
------------
 
TR1982 said:
It's easy to abide by the rules that we made. Just wait until China starts calling the shots.
Click to expand...

(cue unnecessarily long explanation)

That's kind of the whole point of international law. States voluntarily give up some part of their sovereignty in exchange for other states doing the same. If states don't feel like doing it, there are very easy ways to opt out.

For example, in human rights law, there are two core treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The titles are fairly self explanatory, but the two together are considered the core of human rights law and the vast majority of the countries in the world have ratified both. Not all countries have though.

China has consistently refused to ratify the ICCPR because it protects rights like freedom of expression that it disagrees with. As a result, it is not illegal under international law when China denies its dissidents the ability to complain about the government. While the law applies to all those countries that have signed the treaty, it does not apply to those that chose not to.

The US, in contrast, is a huge fan of the ICCPR, but has not ratified the CESCR (China has). As a result, it is also not illegal under international law when the US denies its citizens the highest attainable standard of physical health. Again, the US hasn't signed the treaty, so the law doesn't apply.

To sum up, China has been calling the shots, just like every other country. If China (or any other country) doesn't like a law/treaty/etc., it just doesn't ratify it, metaphorically taking its ball and going home. The US is notorious for not ratifying fairly popular treaties (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Kyoto Protocol, Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, etc.), so I don't expect anything to change in the future.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
I know nothing about international law, so I am not going to get involved in this one, but as someone who deals with the Rule Against Perpetuities on almost a daily basis and spent a good part of 8 hours researching the 1954 version of the RAP in Georgia, it totally exists (and totally sucks).
Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:
How?
Click to expand...

Most often, exercises of powers of appointment in further trust.
 
Statement from the deceased's family

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/binladen-statement.html?_r=1&ref=asia

I Omar Ossama Binladin and my brothers the lawful children and heirs of the Ossama Binladin (OBL) have noted wide coverage of the news of the death of our father, but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead. Therefore, with this press statement, we seek such conclusive evidence to believe the stories published in relation to 2 May 2011 operation Geronimo as declared by the President of United States Barrack Hussein Obama in his speech that he authorized the said operation and killing of OBL and later confirmed his death.

If OBL has been killed in that operation as President of United States has claimed then we are just in questioning as per media reports that why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world. If he has been summarily executed then, we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated but USA has set a very different example whereby right to have a fair trial, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law has been sacrificed on which western society is built and is standing when a trial of OBL was possible for any wrongdoing as that of Iraqi President Sadam Hussein and Serbian President Slobodan Miloševic'. We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems and crime's adjudication as Justice must be seen to be done.
 
Read the whole thing and I actually would like to hear what the United States response to this is.

I thought they delivered that letter in a clear, concise manner, and yet at the same time did not support what their father did. I really hope we respond in some manner or another.
 
I mean people get shot in the United States when executing search warrants for known criminals believed to be hiding in family members houses. If you are hiding with the most wanted man in the world you are not innocent. Not a single person in that compound was innocent unless they were being held there against their will. By not reporting where he was, for providing him comfort, etc... you are guilty so that takes the last part of his letter out of the equation. I also find it funny that anyone wants a long drawn out trial that ultimately then leads to his execution. He was guilty there is not a single piece of evidence out there or thought that makes that statement false, I could google search multiple videos of self made confessions absent coercion.
 
[Edited to remove some flawed analysis.]

Here's Holder's take. I'm skeptical: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13370919

Re: the agreement between Musharraf and GWB, it doesn't resolve the legality of the operation. Under Pakistani law, can the president sign away the country's territorial sovereignty? I doubt it. The U.S. President certainly can't under U.S. law. Would we be calling it "legal" if Obama had made a secret deal with Pakistan that said they could use their military to kill wanted criminals on our territory without telling us first? Even if such an agreement were legal under domestic law, it might be illegal under international law.
 
Last edited:
ProfessorDeac said:
[Edited to remove some flawed analysis.]

Here's Holder's take. I'm skeptical: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13370919

Re: the agreement between Musharraf and GWB, it doesn't resolve the legality of the operation. Under Pakistani law, can the president sign away the country's territorial sovereignty? I doubt it. The U.S. President certainly can't under U.S. law. Would we be calling it "legal" if Obama had made a secret deal with Pakistan that said they could use their military to kill wanted criminals on our territory without telling us first? Even if such an agreement were legal under domestic law, it might be illegal under international law.
Click to expand...

I would think that such an arrangement would be perfectly acceptable since it follows the long recognized doctrine of hot pursuit. While not exactly a cut and dry example of that bit of doctrine, it's close enough for government work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top