Killing bin Laden was Legal Under US and International Law

[Toro]

Many U.S. legal experts hold firm that the White House is on solid legal footing for its strike teams to carry out attacks on al Qaeda members abroad.

As legal justification, law professors and other experts in military operations uniformly cite an act of Congress that was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The resolution lets the president use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines aided in the 2001 attacks. It justifies the actions in the name of self-defense, "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the U.S.

The resolution applies to military operations such as the Pakistani raid that killed Osama bin Laden and past attacks on al Qaeda operatives abroad, say legal experts who study military actions.

If a target is trying to surrender it is unlawful to kill him under international law. The White House said bin Laden "resisted" arrest.

Decades-old international laws on armed conflict also appear to authorize the raid and other similar actions, said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor, and other legal experts. Those laws as well as provisions in the Charter of the United Nations call for a foreign government to receive consent from a host nation for a military operation to be carried out on its soil. But there is one caveat: that the host country is both capable and willing to deal with problems itself.

The U.S. can argue that Pakistan was unwilling to ferret out bin Laden or that, the experts said. A similar legal argument could be made for drone attacks in Somalia, Yemen and in other nations where governments have seemed unwilling or lack the firepower to attack al Qaeda operatives themselves.

Under these doctrines—and given al Qaeda's track record of using suicide bombers and booby-trapping hideouts—it is irrelevant whether suspects are armed or reach for a weapon when making determinations of whether deaths during raids are legal, some experts say.

In 2004, suspects in the Madrid train bombing that killed 191 people rigged their hideout with explosives, and when police converged, they blew it up, killing themselves and a Spanish special forces agent. Unarmed civilians can't be targeted, but a certain amount of "collateral damage" is allowed, experts said.

"If he's doing anything other than surrendering, he's still a target," said Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. ...

Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say - WSJ.com

 

[Trajan]

But laws governing police departments, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and other U.S. agents do authorize lethal force when there is an imminent threat of harm from a suspect. Covert operations by the Central Intelligence Agency that involve lethal force are deemed legal because they are authorized by the president, but they're risky because other nations can find those operations to be illegal.

so that are arguing that the use deadly force was applicable here?

and this;

The resolution lets the president use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines aided in the 2001 attacks. It justifies the actions in the name of self-defense, "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the U.S.

can you infer from that last sentence that harsh interrogation is a form of defense or appropriate use of force in that they are seeking to prevent "future acts"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

But laws governing police departments, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and other U.S. agents do authorize lethal force when there is an imminent threat of harm from a suspect. Covert operations by the Central Intelligence Agency that involve lethal force are deemed legal because they are authorized by the president, but they're risky because other nations can find those operations to be illegal.

so that are arguing that the use deadly force was applicable here?

and this;

The resolution lets the president use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines aided in the 2001 attacks. It justifies the actions in the name of self-defense, "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the U.S.

can you infer from that last sentence that harsh interrogation is a form of defense or appropriate use of force in that they are seeking to prevent "future acts"?

No.