Thank god lawyers had no say in this one; if they did,the US taxpayer could be forced to fund Bin Laden's case, a New York legal firm could get rich defending a mass murderer, Jeffrey Robinson would get his head on TV on innumerable occasions using his legal standing to assert some kind of moral high ground, and, worst of all, Bin Laden could escape conviction.

In addition, stories of his maltreatment in captivity would likely emerge, oddball legal people would volunteer their services and appear on the ABC as 'experts', and, in the blink of an eye, BL would become some kind of heroic victim and the Americans would be portrayed the villains yet again by his supporters and the political Left.

Justice doesn't always require Lawyers.

Lawyers are always looking to stir the pot. Judged by the International Law regarding to Armed Conflict (which applies to American Forces - but not ours "apparently" - we are to be held to a much higher duty of care), the SEALS acted appropriately. They were confronted with a person they recognised as the leader of a group of suicide bombers. How precisely were they to ascertain he was not armed? If he'd been equipped with a bomb, everyone in the room would have died... Immediate action was called for (based on the evidence to hand) and the indicated deadly force used. Simple.

Soooo... the fake Bin Ladens have been pensioned off by the fakers in the Pentagon, the fakers in the Whitehouse and the fakers in the US State Department.

What hurts me though is the way in which our fawning federal politicians are forced to give lip service to these myths.

It was just time to exorcise the ghost of Bin Laden in order to boost Obama and get the obvious theft of Libya's oil wealth off the front pages.

Such is life in the Empire.

Thank God criminal justice has been metered out on a mass murderer and a menace to human society.

Another thread of pointless navel gazing.

That Osama was an on going threat to many lives is not in question, neither is the fact that the seals had to fight their way into the compound, neither is the fact that they were expecting resistance from Osama himself, neither is the fact that the operation was well outside US jurisdiction and there was no time for negotiations.

Given this the decision to shoot Osama is justified unless the seal was ordered to not to take him prisoner. The information from the white house is that the seals were instructed to "capture or kill" this thread is pointless unless some evidence is provided to the contrary.

The American military seems to work on the principle of "The end justifies the means and to hell with the rule of law". As far as we can tell, in the matter of the assassination of Osama bin Laden, he had very little opportunity to surrender and the SEALs had orders to kill him anyway.

So much for the American justice system. God is on their side, that is all that matters.

David

The writer poses some important questions which unfortunately are not considered by most of the letter writers to date and that is perhaps as distrubing as the Americans actions themselves.
One of the respndents clearly does not like lawyers but has he/she considered that the law is the thin line that divides civilized people from the barbaric nonsense that equates murder with justice.
Assuming for the moment that the person allegedly killed was in fact bin Laden (by no means a certainty) he was protected by the Geneva conventions as the leader of a militia type group. As such he was entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war. On the Americans own account he was not armed, not offering resistance and there was no evidence that he had weapons or explosives concealed on his person. One cannot in law shoot someone because they might pose a threat.
There is also the question of the right of the Americans to unilaterally invade another country's sovereign jurisdiction. the Pakistan government says that it was not informed in advance and if true they cannot have consented. The Seals were therefore acting in breach of international law in doing what they did.
The writer of the srticle also assumes that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. In fact he did not confess and always denied involvement. The FBI said they had no hard evidence linking OBL to 9/11 and he is/was not on their most wanted list for that crime.
Given the rapid changes in the official story and the huge number of unanswered quesitons about this murder and disposal of the body one should be very cautious in jumping to any conclusions on the evidence to date. Much less should we be lauding the Americans for what they have done. Australia is not advantaged by association with such international lawlessness.

How extraordinary. The author refers to US laws (which may well prohibit certain actions by US citizens or military personnel) but makes no reference to Pakistan law, which, apart from international law, governs a killing in Pakistan.

Bin Laden had openly declared war on America and openly encouraged
the shooting of Americans.

In war, unless you are flying the white flag and have your hands
up, you are likely to get shot.

Bin Laden paid for the consequences of his actions.

Good on Obama for having the guts to go ahead with it all.

James,

One is only a prisoner of war if one surrenders. There is no indication that he had done so.

@ Shadow Minister

No, that is not the case. One becomes a prisoner of war by being captured. OBL offered no resistance in any meaningful sense of the word. He was therefore entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

*OBL offered no resistance in any meaningful sense of the word.*

James, you don't have a scrap of evidence to support your claim.

Fact is that wearing suicide vests has become a common practise
amongst bin Laden and his friends. Either he or his wife could
well have been wearing one.

Bin Laden made it clear that he would not be taken alive, so those
capturing him would have endangered their own lives, if he was not
submissive, with his hands up.

That was their judgement really, war is war, people get shot if
they don't openly surrender. There is no evidence that he did that.

Yabby

>> Bin Laden made it clear that he would not be taken alive, so those
capturing him would have endangered their own lives, if he was not
submissive, with his hands up. <<

How the hell do you know?

As information trickles out, we know he was NOT armed, yet was still shot.

Looks like assassination, sounds like assassination, probably quacks like it as well.

*How the hell do you know?*

Cleary I am am better informed then you are.
Read his many claims over the years, as I have.

Yabby,
I have noticed that you are one who never lets facts get in the way of opinion. Most of what we "know" is based on what the Americans themselves have admitted. They have admitted he was unarmed. They have admitted he did not offer any resistance. They have admitted that he was just standing in the room in his pyjamas. They have admitted that they had no real reason to believe he was wired for demolition. They have admitted that the order was to kill him. Brennan (National Security Adviser) said it was an "act of national self defence". Quite apart from the fact that the circumstances do not come remotely within the provisions of Art 51 of the UN Charter (the self defence provisions) Brennan's statement is a tacit admission that the seals had no reason to act in "self-defence" when they shot the man they say was OBL.
Of course disposing of the body (itself in violation of Pakistan's law) makes independent verification of any of their claims manifestly impossible. I suspect that was the object from the beginning.

No matter how one views Jo Coghlan's thought provoking essay, the fact remains, any town in Aust; your House, your street could be the target of a surreptitious Seal invasion !

Make no mistake: The US has disingenuously contravened International & Territorial Law; UNSC Charter, and a Country's Sovereignty Laws.

Aside from Obama's zeitgeist revelations on 60 Minutes, the Abbottabad mission was an unadulterated disaster. It took years of planning mockup's, surveillance drones, illegal phone taps, and all the Military & CIA super sleuths paraphernalia to uncover and demystify Bin Laden - a decrepit,impoverished, bearded old man ?

On the FBI's ten most wanted list, Bin Laden in 1979 was recruited to fight against the Soviet Invasion. Armed, and financed, the Mujaheddin, carried out a relentless War - the forerunner of Al-qaeda.
The other nine, are racketeers, mobsters, extortionist, etc who make up 20 % of the population. A reward of $ 25 M will be claimed by the 79 member assassination squad, and personally decorated by Obama, as deserving heroes.

Operation " Neptune Spear " - code name " Geronimo ", was an Intelligence fiasco, as was the supposedly covet operation, involving at least four MH-60 Blackhawk gunships, 3 CH47 Chinooks, and a variety of surveillance / jamming a/c, together with an assortment of Carrier Fighters & Bombers hovering over the area ?
One Blackhawk crashed, and Senator Kerry traveled to Pakistan to soothe tempers, ruffled feathers, and arrange retrieval of the downed a/c, which had sophisticated " sleuth " characteristics, that evade radar detection. Another $ 500,000 no less.

The egregious ongoing saga, with admissions / denials make Alice-in-Wonderland, tame in comparison. Whatever, the final outcome, it behooves the Public, to wash it down, with a hearty dose of Magnesium sulphate ( MgS04 ) Colloquially known as Epsoms.

Relief. You earned it.

Yabby

Are you even on the same planet?

Osama bin Laden was shot down unarmed in his home. What his claims have been over the years have nothing to do with this fact.

A trial would've established and demystified the man from his image.

Please read the posts from James O'Neill and Dalma above; they are not letting emotion dictate their response to the Seals invasion, which you appear to be relishing.

There's really no point asking whether it is legal to kill the chief of the enemy forces in the context of a war (while the armed recruits of that enemy forces are, on the other hand, fair game).

The issue is- to what right do we actually extend our law internationally to this man?

As he belongs to a Wahabi nation (of informal geographical status) that follows a completely different legal system that definitely does not believe in Western courts (that includes the UN) and is specifically recruiting to throw back a Western "imperialist occupation" we are arguably even less justified (most of all in the eyes of himself and his supporters) to subject him to one of OUR trials, than we are to kill each other in the context of a war.

The War For Profit Gang have plumbed the depths of our gullibility and ignorance and found them to be almost bottomless. Those guys must be cacking themselves with mirth as they prepare for next season's false flag attack on our credibility.

The fake "security experts" won't have to wait long for their next banquet if the smorgasboard of fake terror in this "news" report is anything to go by:

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14993

Note this is brought to you by the patron saint of fake terror Murdoch, known in this house as Cloacus Maxima (Google it)....

Concerning Bin Laden, in 2006 the FBI admitted, "He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Why then do so many victims of this fairy tale have a vested interest in keeping the myths alive? Have we become so intellectually cretinous that we have lost the power to face reality without our daily dose of junk TV?

What about our kids out there in Afghanistan? What about them? The 20 year-old servicemen were only 11 when this fakery began. Don't we owe them better than that... our kids?

It's pathetic that so many people would rather save face than admit to the fact that we have been made to look like fools....

Yes, as predicted in my first post, there are those who will automatically turn Bin Laden, the mass murderer, into a victim, if not a hero, and the US into the villains. That's why he wasn't kept alive.

Atman

Bin Laden is no victim.

Nor

the USA heroes.

No one is looking righteous in the "war on terror".

Whether the killing was legal or not is a bit of an irrelevant question. Law is only worth mentioning if somebody has the power to enforce it. Who in the world is going to stand up to the USA? If Obama authorised an illegal operation, who in the world is really going to prosecute him? Why do we bother talking about it, then?

I am in two minds over this one. On the one hand, I'm not going to lose any sleep over his death; on the other, my stomach turns a little bit every time I hear the word 'justice' in connection with this story. In my opinion, it is a sick misuse of the word - at least as we understand it in the western world.

Another pointless issue (relevant, perhaps, but pointless because we won't be doing anything about it anytime soon) is the fact that the USA once again justifies its actions with reference to its own laws, but no regard for the laws of the country in which the actions took place. The killing took place in Pakistan, apparently without the approval of the Pakistani government (though it appears that they still haven't worked out their own story). Would we accept and applaud these actions if they took place on our soil, without the knowledge or approval of our government?

Ah James, how easy it is to be an armchair critic, with the benefit
of time and the safety of your home. I remind you, this operation
was about nailing the world's most wanted terrorist, it was not
the arrest of a petty criminal.

In war, if you want to survive, you shoot first and ask questions
later, unless the situation is crystal clear. Otherwise you'll
land up as another statistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/helmet-cams-captured-bin-laden-raid/2011/05/12/AFcgxY1G_video.html

The Washington Post put together what happened in those last moments.

Clearly there was a struggle, nobody put their hands up, the situation
was not clear. In that case, shoot first is excellent advice.

Even what bin Laden was wearing is not so clear. One commentary
claimed that he was wearing a jacket with phone numbers and money.
But if a set of pyjamas would fool you, you clearly would not be
much good against the tricks of Al Qaeda. They took out Massoud
when he forgot to doubt their video camera and forgot to have it
checked for explosives. None of those guys were aware what else
could be waiting in that room.

If my life was on the line, I would do exactly the same in a war
situation. Shoot first and ask questions later, unless everybody
has their hands up, or if there is the slightest struggle.

Better to be paranoid then dead. Armchair critics of course don't
risk their lives, so they can pontificate to their hearts content.

It is sad that “experts” far from the scene of events seem to have a pathological need to nitpick .

Look at the salient facts:
1)The subject –through his own taped & written records --admitted personally planning & financing the murder of thousands of non-combatants across a number of countries and, inspired the killing & maiming many more.
2)When a request was made to his then Taliban hosts that he be handed over for trial , they refused . When an attempt was made to capture him, he fled. We now learn taking up residence in Pakistan while all the time orchestrating further dastardly deeds.
3)His brethren (which may include the Pakistani military and intelligence services) have shown a willingness to hide and service him whatever his doings.
4)He had vowed never to be taken alive and was never too committed to the Queensbury rules.

Why would anyone --living in the real world-- risk his/her life to extend a chance to such a person?

The experts, now that the danger has subsided somewhat, suggest things should have been done differently —but to what ends.

If he had been captured, the fall back position for such experts would have no doubt been i) he had not been read his rights, or ii) undue force had been used to move him when he refused to accompany his captors –and imagine the headlines & expert hullabaloo if such a removal resulted in him being …bruised!

And what would have been the odds that one of those legal experts wouldn’t have gotten him off i) diminished mental capacity, or ii) insufficient admissible evidence. We have some right here on OLO who cling to the fantasy that 911 was a CIA or Zionist plot.

And as for Geoffrey Robertson saying a trial would have discredited Osama in the eyes of his admirers --“ Tell him he dreaming!”. Osama can offer his admirers an eternal life serviced by 72 doe eyed heavenly houri.What can Robertson & his peers offer to counter that?

In canvassing the opinions of legal experts regarding the death in combat of Osama bin Laden, perhaps Jo might have looked no further than the ANU?

'As a combatant [bin Laden] is ... a lawful target and can be killed because he enjoys no immunity as a combatant. He has combatant status as he is the head of al-Qaeda, an organisation involved in armed conflict with the US, not only because of the events of 9/11 but because it continues to be at conflict with the United States' - Donald Rothwell, professor of international law at the ANU College of Law.

Osama bin Laden was a combatant in a self-declared war against the United States (see his fatwa of 1996, 'Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places').

Bin Laden may have been unarmed at the moment he was shot, but when he ducked into a room upon sighting them, the SEALs legitimately believed he was trying to reach weapons - which were indeed in the room.

By the same principle, does that make Barack Obama a 'combatant' and therefore a legal target, as he is the commander in chief of the US armed forces?

I'm not being facetious - it's a genuine question.

Otokonoko

I agree.

To the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-brigade:

Those claiming that this is a war situation like WW1 or WW2, which I do not believe it is, must accept that the actions of the SEAL troops invite appropriate retaliation and Obama, therefore, would be a legitimate target.

It's an interesting question. I don't know whether a 'combatant' differentiates between a political-military commander and a field commander and active combatant - as bin Laden was both.

I think the biggest problem facing international law and military law today is that existing laws are mostly predicated on war being fought between nation-states, when many modern conflicts do not fall under this rubric at all.

That's a very valid point as well. I don't know that a great clash of the nation states in the vein of the two World Wars, or the Franco-Prussian War or anything along those lines will happen again anytime soon. Even Vietnam and Korea were not defined along national lines. The rules, as always, have taken a while to catch up.

On a side note - can we do something about those creepy Medibank ads??

Clownfish

RE: Medibank ads

I am soooooo sick of those teeth.

BTW

I agree that you have hit on the issue - we no longer fight wars anymore instead we have raids, skirmishes, mini-invasions - there are no rules that apply.

The other thing that occurred to me, reading Jo's article, was Orwell's observation that, 'one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries.'

'Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.'

"By the same principle, does that make Barack Obama a 'combatant' and therefore a legal target, as he is the commander in chief of the US armed forces? I'm not being facetious - it's a genuine question."
Posted by Otokonoko,

Absolutely- in a war the commander of the armed forces/head of state of the enemy nation is as much fair game as the other- something both heads of both forces understand.

Alternatively, had Bin Laden or some other Islamist somehow actually won the debate and stormed the white house, would anyone have thought that Bin Laden had a mandate to charge Obama with an offense under Shariah law?
(the answer is no).

In a context that two people are going to command their armed forces to kill their way through the enemy commander's armed forces, the idea that they'd actually kill the commander actually responsible is entirely reasonable if we were to consider the rest acceptable.

When Al Quaida and the Taliban declared they were at war with the US
and other Western countries they generated a new set of rules.
Now war does not have to be between city states or counries, it now
can be between ad hoc organisations and cities or countries.

Additionally the rules of war have changed. Soldiers do not need to
wear uniforms or have serial numbers and paybooks.
Civilians need to keep well clear of soldiers as they dress in a very
similar manner. Likewise a civilian carrying a weapon has no recourse
if he is shot on sight by a soldier.

Now the legal establishment in and out of the UN may not like this but
what do they have to do with it ?
All they have to do is draw up the rules to suit the new arrangements.