The Killing Of bin Laden, Torture And The Laws Of War

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:23:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Washington Post Editorial Board argues that the killing of Osama bin Laden was compliant with the laws of war:

SOME ARE questioning the legality of the raid in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. [. . .] Did they comply with international strictures when they killed the al-Qaeda leader rather than capturing him and bringing him before a court of law? [. . .T]he Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) [. . .] was, in short, a declaration of war, and Osama bin Laden was rightly targeted for his central role in the atrocities. Absent a surrender, there is no question that U.S. forces would have been entitled to shoot him on sight [. . .]

Without considering the merits of the particular actions regarding bin Laden, I agree that the laws of war apply to US military actions against Al Qaida. This is true in the context of detention of enemy combatants, and it is also true with regard to torture. The United States committed war crimes when it tortured enemy combatants. That stain remains upon the Nation, unexamined and uncleansed.

Speaking for me only

< Torture Does Not Work: Part 3 | New Jobless Claims Jump To 474K >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Killing Of bin Laden, Torture And The Laws Of War | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"That stain remains upon the Nation... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dadler on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:41:06 AM EST

"...unexamined and uncleansed."

And, it must be added, we currently lack the national spine (and the principled leadership necessary to help strengthen it), in order to unflinchingly examine and, when evidence requires, indict. We need not simply to cleanse, but to decontaminate and reconstruct.

And the longer it goes without (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Anne on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:20:41 PM EST

examination, the more "normal" it becomes, and the greater the chances that even worse awaits.

These lines in the sand should have been drawn back in the new Congress of 2007, the one where Democrats held majorities in both houses, when the architects of so much evil were still in office.

But, how could those lines be drawn, when captured on the wrong side of them would have been an eye-poppingly large number of members of Congress, many of them Democrats?

To an extent that disturbs me more and more, we have lost much of the check-and-balance that having three independent branches of government is supposed to provide, and we've replaced it with a form of mutually assured destruction: "if you investigate me, I'll have to talk about your role, and I don't think that's where you want to go with this."

It's just disgusting that this is where we are.

Are you trying to hurt (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:48:24 PM EST

George Bush's feelings even more than they already are? Torture brought me Abu Ghraib too if Karpinski is to be believed. Richardo Sanchez was running around telling people under him they were going to get him the intelligence through "interrogations" linking Iraq to 9/11 or else (or else what....or else you are going to have to be a Senator?), even though no such evidence existed. They sure did try to get him some though didn't they?

Torture was normalized when (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by observed on Thu May 05, 2011 at 03:02:52 PM EST

George Bush's "speeches" were first heard, then analyzed as if he were Churchill.

Bin Laden Was A Criminal, Not a War Criminal (none / 0) (#5)
by john horse on Thu May 05, 2011 at 04:32:08 PM EST

re: Without considering the merits of the particular actions regarding bin Laden, I agree that the laws of war apply to US military actions against Al Qaida.

War occurs between nations. Where on the map is the nation of Al Queda?

What Bin Laden and Al Queda did was commit murder. This is a crime, not an act of war. The "war against terrorism" is a useful fiction that allows the administration to violate human rights and the rule of law.

War occurs between (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2011 at 06:30:06 PM EST

organized forces, "nations" don't have anything to do with the actual generalized definition of war.


Al Qaida (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by cal1942 on Fri May 06, 2011 at 01:41:46 AM EST

was a partner of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban when Congress authorized military operations. The rationale was that a failed state, Afghanistan, harbored Al Qaida. Al Qaida was an obvious target of that military action. Al Qaida had in fact declared war on the United States as the Barbary Pirates had declared war on the United States more than two centuries ago.

Al Qaida considered murdering Americans anywhere and everywhere an act of war and has continued to plan attacks against US citizens as continuing acts of war. Osama bin Laden was a combatant in that war.


No, Al Queda Was the Obvious Target (none / 0) (#8)
by john horse on Fri May 06, 2011 at 06:09:46 AM EST

for criminal action. If someone or some group decides to "declare war" on the United States, comes over to our country and murders American, that person or persons have committed murder. Its only an act of war if that group was acting on behalf of another nation.

According to "the Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald, Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor, has stated that those responsible for acts of terrorism such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system." (see other criticism of "war on terror" here.

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.

On 9/18/2001, Congress passed the AUMF (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by christinep on Fri May 06, 2011 at 02:59:02 PM EST

...Authorization for the Use of Military Force...against those involved (via admission, acknowledgement, or otherwise.) Because of that & in accord with International Law, responding as the US stated it would & did in the field followed our law & international law.


And, of course, you're right (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by NYShooter on Fri May 06, 2011 at 03:22:59 PM EST

(you better cut that out)

In looking up the definition of "war" in several dictionaries, each one gives interpretations beyond the common, accepted one i.e. uniforms, nations, insignias, etc:

"War generally involves two or more organized groups or parties (often, nations)"

"The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare."

And, from a simple common sense approach, I don't think its presumptuous at all to say that the recipient of an attack by an "an organized group" is free to define the attackers any way they want to.


According to Britains Senior Criminal Prosecutor (none / 0) (#11)
by john horse on Sat May 07, 2011 at 05:19:32 AM EST

the terrorists saw themselves as "soldiers" and those they killed were victims of war. I believe that the terrorists were wrong. As Britains senior criminal prosecutor said they "were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists." Do you believe that New York or London were battlefields? Do you believe they were soldiers? The terrorists were murderers. They committed a crime, not an act of war. I refuse to define the terrorists on or by their terms.


Where is the Law (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by NYShooter on Sat May 07, 2011 at 05:51:45 AM EST

that states soldiers must be competent?

And, you can call them "murderers" if you like. In fact, you can call them ballerinas, or The Beatles, for that matter. It doesn't change the fact that they organized themselves in a military manner, and their goals, in their eyes, were military goals. Targeting civilians, for the purpose of demoralizing your enemy, in case you forgot, is not unique to A.Q. There's quite a few cities in Germany and Japan, and many thousands of civilians who probably felt as you did, that America didn't send soldiers, she sent murderers.

That's not my opinion, of course, but you don't get to define that people who are doing the killing, and being killed, are murderers just because you don't like their goals, their looks, or their I.Q's.


: I'm Not Defining Al Queda As Murderers (none / 0) (#13)
by john horse on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:15:58 PM EST

because I don't "like their goals, their looks, or their IQs". I'm defining them as murderers because they meet the legal definition for murder.
Your counter examples actually supports my view. The bombing of cities in Japan and Germany involved nations that were at war. We have had many terrorist organizations that "organized themselves in a military manner" and had "military goals". Prior to the "global war against terror" our government took a criminal approach, rather than a military approach, to these groups. There is nothing substantial different between Al Queda and other terrorist groups.