President Obama's four Thomas Cromwells.
The saddest part of this story is the implication lurking in the background of how all these lawyers efforts were for naught since Americans didn't really care about the legality of the raid, and even if were it illegal, there weren't any mechanisms in place to enforce international law, anyway.
4
If lawyers made the decisions in WW2 D day June 6,1944 would never have happened because an innocent french civilian may have died. Time to put the lawyers in the forward patrols in harms way, to bring this country back to reality . Time to go in to win or don't go in at all
The US has always acted with impunity from the local police killing blacks to the drone assassinations, to this short lived invasion of Pakistan. I find it surprising that the administrations find it necessary to get legal opinions justifying rendition, torture, and assassinations. They will always do whatever they want. It would be nice if that changed!
4
It was perfect. Pakistan didn't make a fuss, and we don't have a figure around for further propaganda. I hope we haven't stop looking for al-Zawahiri. Am glad somebody learned from Desert-1, a back up helo.
2
The leader of al-Qaeda, OBL, inspired, praised and took credit for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Afterwards he encouraged and avowed more attacks on the U.S. homeland.
After more than 3000 were killed by terrorists, are the legal semantics about eliminating the source of their guidance really an issue?
After more than 3000 were killed by terrorists, are the legal semantics about eliminating the source of their guidance really an issue?
2
Many of the commenters here seem to believe that those of us who are dismayed at how Osama's assassination took place are shedding tears for Osama. Nobody is crying for him. I have not seen anyone here saying Osama did not deserve to die.
However, once upon a time, Americans had a justifiable pride that we were different from our enemies, better than them. A lot of that had to do with pride in the American Way, democracy and our system of justice. Does it make a difference whether Osama was captured, tried, and then executed, or whether someone just puts a bullet in him? It probably did not make any difference to Osama. It should make a difference to us, as Americans, as to how justice is served.
We captured Goering and other Nazis -- unquestionably responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS, not thousands -- alive, to try them in open court, before the whole world, for their crimes. (Then, we hanged them.) We have come a long way (down) since the Nuremberg Trials.
However, once upon a time, Americans had a justifiable pride that we were different from our enemies, better than them. A lot of that had to do with pride in the American Way, democracy and our system of justice. Does it make a difference whether Osama was captured, tried, and then executed, or whether someone just puts a bullet in him? It probably did not make any difference to Osama. It should make a difference to us, as Americans, as to how justice is served.
We captured Goering and other Nazis -- unquestionably responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS, not thousands -- alive, to try them in open court, before the whole world, for their crimes. (Then, we hanged them.) We have come a long way (down) since the Nuremberg Trials.
4
Your post has a number of problems.
(1) We had declared war on Germany before we invaded it. Are you suggesting we should have declared war on Pakistan prior to undertaking the raid to kill OBL? Then you should have stated so. Plus, you should explain why you think OBL would not have gone into hiding once war was declared, which obviously would defeat the purpose of declaring war in the first place.
(2) The so-called crimes for which the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg were invented retroactively after the war. I believe that what we did then (killing the Nazi leaders) was the correct thing to do, but it was not strictly in accord with contemporary international law.
(1) We had declared war on Germany before we invaded it. Are you suggesting we should have declared war on Pakistan prior to undertaking the raid to kill OBL? Then you should have stated so. Plus, you should explain why you think OBL would not have gone into hiding once war was declared, which obviously would defeat the purpose of declaring war in the first place.
(2) The so-called crimes for which the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg were invented retroactively after the war. I believe that what we did then (killing the Nazi leaders) was the correct thing to do, but it was not strictly in accord with contemporary international law.
This article only shows the extent preparedness on the part of US to obtain the US and international approval for having killed OBL. This operation was impossible without the expensive blessings of puppet masters of Pakistan (The Pakistani Army and the ISI). A shady deal allowing capture of OBL by the SEAL team and subsequently killing him some remote caves of Pakistan Afghanistan border. A perfect face saving scheme, that would have kept all the parties celebrating "Happy Happy Joy Joy". Malfunctioning of the Stealth Chinook (the carcass of which was bought by our dear friend China from our BFF Pakistan...that is a complete different story) was an unfortunate event as it created a situation out of our comfort zone. Obama's and Hillary's facial expression is evidence enough of the great game being unravelled in front of their eyes. Seymour Hersh is absolutely right when he says that "we do not know the complete story behind killing of OBL.
Middle east is burning. ISIS is winning on all fronts. Pakistanis continue to blackmail us (by being owner fourth largest number of nuclear warheads - ready for any takers, including the ISIS). For how long we will remain a silent observer and a bit players (who usually gets played) while the world enters a dangerous and chaotic phase.
Middle east is burning. ISIS is winning on all fronts. Pakistanis continue to blackmail us (by being owner fourth largest number of nuclear warheads - ready for any takers, including the ISIS). For how long we will remain a silent observer and a bit players (who usually gets played) while the world enters a dangerous and chaotic phase.
2
Finding 100 lawyers to justify an extra judicial execution......no problem....
Those in power throughout history never had a problem finding lawyers to justify whatever barbarity they wanted perpetrate on their fellow human beings.
Lawyers are good for justifications,
but the last people to go to for morals, ethics, standards of any kind.
Those in power throughout history never had a problem finding lawyers to justify whatever barbarity they wanted perpetrate on their fellow human beings.
Lawyers are good for justifications,
but the last people to go to for morals, ethics, standards of any kind.
4
Imagine your typical morning. You kiss the wife and kids goodbye and go to work. An hour later you are faced with a decision: Do I burn to death in 2000 heat or do I jump to my death out of a 100 story building? That's what bin Laden forced on people in the WTC on 9/11. To this day I cannot shake the image of those people jumping out of the building. Such unimaginable evil...
I'm glad bin Laden is dead, I don't care how they did it.
I'm glad bin Laden is dead, I don't care how they did it.
3
Good. that animal is dead.
2
This is just another instance of the fact that the country is being run by a group of secret military connected individuals who do not appear to be influenced greatly by democratic principles of government. Why it so necessary to kill Osama bin Laden so secretly and quickly and dispose of his body with such haste are questions that someone better raise and follow up on. Unfortunately Mr. Obama seems to be more a tool of the secret cabal rather than anyone who will objectively look into what is going on somewhere behind the CIA/Pentagon black curtain. It's time for a Bernie Sanders who will not be afraid, as Mr. Obama is, of "pointing fingers".
2
You attack my country and my people, you die.
1
tl:dr; Lawyers can justify anything if you give them enough money.
2
All the legalisms aside, all the contradictions in administration explanations aside, all the niceties of diplomatic and international relations aside, the bottom line was, is, and always will be that Osama Bin Laden financed, planned and implemented an attack on this nation's citizens without any forewarning. Anyone who ever believed that he would be captured alive to be brought to justice is naïve. His minions continue their insane cruelty and gross bestiality in numerous places. Bin Laden did not deserve the time, effort and energy that these American lawyers spent trying to justify what was simply predictable the outcome of an attempt to capture a man who would not be captured!
1
Ok, got it. We can kill someone without a trial, no problem, but we better not water-board anyone. Oh no, the current administration is too "moral" for that.
10
Categorically different, friend. That decision was made on the spot, not back at the White House.
More than Ghaddaffi and Hussein, bin Laden involved a troubling set of issues that too many seek to simplify. The guy ordered 9/11. He celebrated when the World Trade Center collapsed as children burned to death inside it -- and inside the planes that struck it. He went into hiding for years and, despite indictments and warrants and other legal process, ignored our orders.
When we discovered Abbottabad, there were two choices: notify Pakistan that we'd found this place and ask it to extradite bin Laden. Many left-leaning commentators expected this. After all, what kind of due process does bin Laden get if he isn't even given a chance to defend the allegations against him? Of course, this ignored bin Laden's own admission and commitments. He admitted to coordinating attacks against the US and, more importantly, promised more attacks. So if we tell Pakistan and they tell bin Laden, we risk another decade of searching for this mass murderer.
Option 2 was what we did: get inside Pakistan, attack the compound and take bin Laden. If he surrenders, we bring him back. If he doesn't surrender and is surrounded by armed protectors -- as was the case -- we shoot him. IF he doesn't surrender and he's not armed, we physically remove him. Of course, this was pretty unlikely given the size and structure of the Abbottabad compound. Yes, lawyers had to be involved. And yes, from a legal perspective, we reached the right decision.
When we discovered Abbottabad, there were two choices: notify Pakistan that we'd found this place and ask it to extradite bin Laden. Many left-leaning commentators expected this. After all, what kind of due process does bin Laden get if he isn't even given a chance to defend the allegations against him? Of course, this ignored bin Laden's own admission and commitments. He admitted to coordinating attacks against the US and, more importantly, promised more attacks. So if we tell Pakistan and they tell bin Laden, we risk another decade of searching for this mass murderer.
Option 2 was what we did: get inside Pakistan, attack the compound and take bin Laden. If he surrenders, we bring him back. If he doesn't surrender and is surrounded by armed protectors -- as was the case -- we shoot him. IF he doesn't surrender and he's not armed, we physically remove him. Of course, this was pretty unlikely given the size and structure of the Abbottabad compound. Yes, lawyers had to be involved. And yes, from a legal perspective, we reached the right decision.
5
That's rational thinking; go figure. Certainly not standard operating procedure outside military operations in the US Gov.
What's next? "Embedded" lawyers to make sure the the troops don't say anything that could hurt them later in court?
Wow, a litigious society or what/
Wow, a litigious society or what/
2
Capturing Bin Ladin was tried in a tight situation. Time for carrying it out was limited. SEAL's available to capture him were few. People in the compound including Bin Ladin were expected to be armed and were in fact. They fired at the SEAL's. Orders were to take Bin Ladin dead or alive. He could have surrendered peacefully but was not expected to and there was no time to negotiate a peaceful surrender had Bin Ladin been willing to lay out conditions for giving up.
This article is crazy.
This article is crazy.
2
I honestly do not see what all the fuss is about. Terrorist leaders are 'taken out' on an almost daily basis using armed drone aircraft and not a word is said about it. If Bin Laden had come into the sites of an Allied sniper from a mile away, it would have been perfectly legitimate to have shot him then, so what difference does it make that the difference was shorter?
Bin Laden has convicted himself over and over again in various videos. There was no doubt about his guilt. He organised and funded Al Queda who routinely killed and maimed innocent people. He was a mad dog and you do not try to reason with such animals.
The soldiers sent in to Bin Laden's compound were operating in a hostile environment with the Pakistani Officers Training School a few hundred yards away. If anyone should say that the Pakistani Army were entirely neutral, they live in a very peculiar World.
Had Bin Laden been brought back to the United States for trial, it would have laid the Country liable for many more terrorist activities. It is far better that he was simply disposed of to reduce the possibility of reprisal and that includes burial at sea.
Bin Laden has convicted himself over and over again in various videos. There was no doubt about his guilt. He organised and funded Al Queda who routinely killed and maimed innocent people. He was a mad dog and you do not try to reason with such animals.
The soldiers sent in to Bin Laden's compound were operating in a hostile environment with the Pakistani Officers Training School a few hundred yards away. If anyone should say that the Pakistani Army were entirely neutral, they live in a very peculiar World.
Had Bin Laden been brought back to the United States for trial, it would have laid the Country liable for many more terrorist activities. It is far better that he was simply disposed of to reduce the possibility of reprisal and that includes burial at sea.
2
Funny that this article stated that even Obama didn't allow AG Holder to know about this plan. Shows that even Obama didn't have trust in Holder. Worst POTUS (Obama) & AG (Holder) Ever
3
The lawyers weren't used to justify the killing of Bin Laden, they were used to justify the government's "legally sanctioned" assassination program. The Bin Laden "killed by a Seal Team" fairy tale was used to set the public up to "trust the actions of the killing teams" that we use to take out those who we feel are threats - to whatever national security story is concocted to keep the money flowing into the coffers of the three letter organizations that have taken over the secret surveillance programs. Programs used to monitor everything from this email to the NY Times to every phone call and communication we make. This isn't about "how they advised getting around the hurdles to "kill" Bin Laden." It is about how they got around the Constitution to be able to use this program against anyone - including American at home and abroad.
10
Let's be honest with ourselves. We are the United States. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, and most of those are our allies. We can and have, either overtly or covertly, invaded and overthrown or supported rebellion in countries all over the world. Does anybody really care about some silly paperwork that these legal clowns scribbled down?
4
Like it or not, it was murder pure and simple.
This is what happens when we treat War as a police action as opposed to real War. We go down a slippery slope where a bunch of junk yard dogs come up with convoluted logic as cover for murder.
I for one like formalities. Like real Declarations of War. Sending 10 Million solders to clear out hornets nets, capturing the heads of the snake and then putting them on trial, then hanging them.
The lawyers and Judges from the Nuremburg Trials are rolling in their graves.
This is what happens when we treat War as a police action as opposed to real War. We go down a slippery slope where a bunch of junk yard dogs come up with convoluted logic as cover for murder.
I for one like formalities. Like real Declarations of War. Sending 10 Million solders to clear out hornets nets, capturing the heads of the snake and then putting them on trial, then hanging them.
The lawyers and Judges from the Nuremburg Trials are rolling in their graves.
11
So now, lawyers plan our military strikes instead of our soldiers?
4
This is the poster that advertised why we have become so ineffective against our enemies. We had to have four lawyers tell our SEAL it was ok to kill bin Laden. Thousands of Americans died on 9-11 and bin Laden was behind that attack as well as others. It is absurd. It also helps us to understand part of the reasons we have become so ineffective against ISIS. Thousand of bombs have been dropped on them and yet their numbers grow with volunteers pouring into Syria. They drive up and down the the highways in caravans with their flags flying and their AKs held high, They have photo ops in front of their compounds. They order and receive brand new SUV, It takes Putin going into
Syria for better weapons be given to those fighting ISIS. Thousands of people have been butchered, tortured, sold into slavery and the worst refugee crises since WW takes place while the stated goal of the president is to "degrade" them and then adds. "We don't have a strategy yet." The plan is simple, kill them. Collin Powell knew what it takes to defeat an enemy and when asked what we were going to do about Saddam's army, his answer was, " “It's simple. We're going to surround them, cut them off, and kill them.” No where did he mention lawyers. Degrading ISIS could mean as little as taking away their SUVs. We need to kill then and no lawyers invited.
Syria for better weapons be given to those fighting ISIS. Thousands of people have been butchered, tortured, sold into slavery and the worst refugee crises since WW takes place while the stated goal of the president is to "degrade" them and then adds. "We don't have a strategy yet." The plan is simple, kill them. Collin Powell knew what it takes to defeat an enemy and when asked what we were going to do about Saddam's army, his answer was, " “It's simple. We're going to surround them, cut them off, and kill them.” No where did he mention lawyers. Degrading ISIS could mean as little as taking away their SUVs. We need to kill then and no lawyers invited.
2
As Pope Francis said, remember, "The yardstick you use to judge others in time will be used to judge you." No judges reviewed the administration's rationales, only lawyers assigned to argue for its legitimacy. No lawyers could make a case against the raid. And then the 4 authors for the raid prayed to the same God of the Pope and Bin Laden for their deceitful web of justifications. They hoped they had found a way around our policy of not assassinating our enemy leaders. But murder is murder. With this act, Obama, ought to return his Nobel Peace Prize. We have no moral convictions.
6
What a surprise: the lawyers decided it was legal to do exactly what the US Government wanted to do. What do you think, when Pakistan squawked about the US's gross violation of its sovereignty, was it these memos that soothed them?
And I wonder, did they go through the same kind of charade when they decided to kill al-Awlaki's teenage kid? Probably not, because the two legal principles involved in that matter were so obvious:
Principle 1. We'll just lie and tell the world it was some kind of accident. Sheer coincidence that that particular boy was where a drone strike hit.
Principle 2. The real point was to send a message to the jihadists: see, we can be as ruthless and violent as you; we will stop at nothing, including killing your children.
Those aren't legal principles? They're as good as anything those four lawyers came up with.
And I wonder, did they go through the same kind of charade when they decided to kill al-Awlaki's teenage kid? Probably not, because the two legal principles involved in that matter were so obvious:
Principle 1. We'll just lie and tell the world it was some kind of accident. Sheer coincidence that that particular boy was where a drone strike hit.
Principle 2. The real point was to send a message to the jihadists: see, we can be as ruthless and violent as you; we will stop at nothing, including killing your children.
Those aren't legal principles? They're as good as anything those four lawyers came up with.
6
got it, it is not Obama's fault that this extrajudicial killing happened, such things don't happen on the liberals watch, it was the evil LAWYERS fault, probably after having been hypnotized by those war criminals Bush and Cheney---just add Bin Laden to the list of charges once the trials for Bush and Cheney begin at the Hague and let Obama off the hook NOW.
6
Boy, there sure is a lot of bloodlust reflected in some of these comments.
I think it would have been far more satisfying to have captured Bin Laden and have him spend the rest of his life in an American prison. Imagine that, being on the other side of the planet, having helped plot and authorize the execution of the world's most heinous act of terror and then being caught by the country you terrorized and then confined in a super-max prison in the center of that country for the rest of your life? Hell, it seemed the guy was practically going insane where he did spend the last years of his life. Never once being allowed the freedom to walk outside. Now take away all his companionship, possessions and possibilities and the freedom of any form of movement; that's punishment! The bloodlusters have no idea how to really hurt a guy. His death put all his fears and frustrations and paranoia to an end, too early.
I think it would have been far more satisfying to have captured Bin Laden and have him spend the rest of his life in an American prison. Imagine that, being on the other side of the planet, having helped plot and authorize the execution of the world's most heinous act of terror and then being caught by the country you terrorized and then confined in a super-max prison in the center of that country for the rest of your life? Hell, it seemed the guy was practically going insane where he did spend the last years of his life. Never once being allowed the freedom to walk outside. Now take away all his companionship, possessions and possibilities and the freedom of any form of movement; that's punishment! The bloodlusters have no idea how to really hurt a guy. His death put all his fears and frustrations and paranoia to an end, too early.
4
With such legal contorsions, any citizen from Iraq could take revenge from GW Bush and Blair. Hopefully both men with all their accomplices will be brought one day to an international Court, and their countries will be charged with huge reparations.
6
And how is this different what the legal justifications that were devised by John Yoo? Oh yeah, this isn't President Bush.
14
Someone compared the killing of Bin Laden with killing Yamamoto in WWII. My thoughts are that in WWII we had declared war on Japan. The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was a legitimate act of war. I wonder. Are we legally at war with Al Qaeda? Can we legally be at war with a terrorist organization as opposed to a country?
If so, then was that compound a legal target? Suppose at the end of WWII we had discovered Hitler hiding out in the German Embassy in Argentina. Would it have been legal for us to go in there without Argentina's approval?
I also have a concern that Holder, the AG, was not included. He's supposed to be that nation's top lawyer. These memos were written without someone who may have had an opposing view, so the answer was a forgone conclusion. These memos, therefore, represent a rationalization rather than the actual work of legal scholarship. Maybe they were one step better than Bush's torture memos, but only marginally.
If so, then was that compound a legal target? Suppose at the end of WWII we had discovered Hitler hiding out in the German Embassy in Argentina. Would it have been legal for us to go in there without Argentina's approval?
I also have a concern that Holder, the AG, was not included. He's supposed to be that nation's top lawyer. These memos were written without someone who may have had an opposing view, so the answer was a forgone conclusion. These memos, therefore, represent a rationalization rather than the actual work of legal scholarship. Maybe they were one step better than Bush's torture memos, but only marginally.
4
Given the story as it lays before us, those marines could have arrested Osama without any problem or risk. The question is why they didn't.
Those lawyers don't convince me. They think up all kinds of exceptional situations that didn't happen.
In the 1970s "Carlos" was the world's most famous terrorist. He was arrested and convicted and has been out of the news and in prison ever since. Why couldn't we prepare a similar fate for Osama? Instead we have made him a martyr whose example is followed by many.
Those lawyers don't convince me. They think up all kinds of exceptional situations that didn't happen.
In the 1970s "Carlos" was the world's most famous terrorist. He was arrested and convicted and has been out of the news and in prison ever since. Why couldn't we prepare a similar fate for Osama? Instead we have made him a martyr whose example is followed by many.
6
We owe Hitler an apology. Eisenhower failed to get a warrant for the D-Day invasion, and to the best of my knowledge, Patton never read the Panzer divisions their rights before the Battle of the Bulge.
3
They were grandfathered in, decades before the Frank Church Commission, and are held harmless.
At a purely human perspective, the murder of bin Laden does not surprise. What causes unease is the US government's attempt to justify the act by scratching up legal authority. The fact is, he was murdered when offering no resistance and his body, reportedly, dumped at sea, thus preventing subsequent examination by independent or non-US parties. If the military mission had been justified in law, then its objective ought to have been that of arresting bin Laden and bringing him to trial before an impartial court.
9
oh, how righteous the offical rage when hollywood does its job of shaping alleged facts to make real entertainment, yet how sanguine (nay cynical) the official manner when they would shape the law to suit their own ends.
4
the important issue and question is:
why did the US government want to deny Bin Laden an opportunity to speak to the world?
why did the US government want to deny Bin Laden an opportunity to speak to the world?
8
justifiable homicide?
1
Killing people isn't illegal anymore. One struggles to see how killing Bin Laden might have posed any special exception. Murder is illegal, but enemy combatant killings are not murder, and virtually anyone could be an enemy combatant at any time.
Only the government can legally kill people - you or I still got to jail for life, or worse, get the death penalty.
2
Whatever happened to
"Innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law?"
Ohh, I forgot this is the country in which there is a president who has been awarded the Peace Nobel Price for things to come and who went to more wars than even his dumb predecessor.
So the law does not count.
"Innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law?"
Ohh, I forgot this is the country in which there is a president who has been awarded the Peace Nobel Price for things to come and who went to more wars than even his dumb predecessor.
So the law does not count.
8
…What law? Who needs a law when a president can claim executive privilege to do anything he wants?
3
Anybody can kill. To arrest and try in a court of law - that would have taken a truly civilized and ethical nation.
8
The murder of Osama bin Laden was, in all probability, the most expensive lynching in world history. So much for international law; so much for the Geneva Conventions; so much for "democracy" in America; so much for jurisprudence exemplified in the Nuremberg trials; so much for Barack Obama's "Nobel Peace Prize"! Osama bin Laden should have been captured instead of riddled with bullets and tried in public trial for all the world to see!
8
Gentlemen, On behalf of a grateful country, thank you.
3
The Sea Burial was a crime for which there is no excuse. The individuals who planned and executed it should be tried in either an American court or the International Court. The destruction of this evidence will forever create doubt about what really happened. This shouldn't be controversial between educated legal scholars.
3
There used to be a day when everyone was due their day in court, no matter how heinous the crime. With this, it appears that the White House and the American people were more interested in revenge than justice.
It seems that we lost much more on 9/11 than the lives of those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
It seems that we lost much more on 9/11 than the lives of those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
9
I think this is outrageous. Why aren't these lawyers being vilified, in fact, criminalized, in the same way those who approved of the so-called "torture" techniques used by Bush/Cheney. There's a huge difference between killing someone and pouring a little water on someone's face.
5
Because when a lawyer for democrat president sanctions it, it's okay. When a republican lawyer sanctions it, it's not. It all depends upon who is sitting in the catbird seat…
1
Osama bin Laden could *NEVER* have been brought back to America to stand trial; he would have insisted on testifying in open court and the things he would have said would have embarrassed a great many government officials, many of them named Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Gonzales, Powell, etc.
(And before you scoffers check-in, yes, I lost a friend on AA11 that day.)
(And before you scoffers check-in, yes, I lost a friend on AA11 that day.)
6
Thank you. Two of my neighbors in Alexandria. VA were killed at the Pentagon.
1
"Stretching sparse precedents" ... Well, that's OK because it was done in service of the Left's favorite, Obama.
But, woe be it for the legal staff in the Bush 2 Administration to deviate an iota from what the Left sanctions in legal interpretations to provide legal support for their policy objective.
Do you guys ever stop to consider the hypocrisy of your writings?
But, woe be it for the legal staff in the Bush 2 Administration to deviate an iota from what the Left sanctions in legal interpretations to provide legal support for their policy objective.
Do you guys ever stop to consider the hypocrisy of your writings?
6
So much time, effort and, I assume, taxpayer money spent justifying something all involved knew wasn't really legal.
bin Laden was assuredly a danergous man, a killer, but his sociopathy doesn't excuse the administration's behavior.
bin Laden was assuredly a danergous man, a killer, but his sociopathy doesn't excuse the administration's behavior.
5
Gee, great job killing a high value intelligence target who was absolutely defenseless and could have told us more about 9/11. Great job covering up for 9/11. Just like you did with Saddam Hussein.
4
Such "rationales" are, of course very foul tricks to deceive the public.
They were based on similarly foul tricks by government themselves, in Bush junior times. which declared Osama bin Laden "guilty of the 9/11 attack" - without even the slightest evidence to this accusation! And there has never been any at any later time. Actually, it is most unlikely that he had anything to do with it. That he applauded it, makes it even less likely: You only applaud what you see as spectator.
It was exactly what the (US installed Taliban) government in Kabul requested for an apprehension and extradition of the accused, which is absolutely correct international legal procedure - they were, however, severely punished for such "atrocious legality" with a military invasion that had no legal basis nor excuse - even if we were told (and even many UN members fooled) to believe what was only a pretense of "legality".
Looking a actions by US governments along the entire period since 1945, we should be used by now to such "legal whitewash" on the own, and "blackwash" on the respective opposite sides.
There wre many things learnt from before 1945, and one of them was the dictum by Herr Goebbels: "A lie told often enough will become public truth."
How true.
They were based on similarly foul tricks by government themselves, in Bush junior times. which declared Osama bin Laden "guilty of the 9/11 attack" - without even the slightest evidence to this accusation! And there has never been any at any later time. Actually, it is most unlikely that he had anything to do with it. That he applauded it, makes it even less likely: You only applaud what you see as spectator.
It was exactly what the (US installed Taliban) government in Kabul requested for an apprehension and extradition of the accused, which is absolutely correct international legal procedure - they were, however, severely punished for such "atrocious legality" with a military invasion that had no legal basis nor excuse - even if we were told (and even many UN members fooled) to believe what was only a pretense of "legality".
Looking a actions by US governments along the entire period since 1945, we should be used by now to such "legal whitewash" on the own, and "blackwash" on the respective opposite sides.
There wre many things learnt from before 1945, and one of them was the dictum by Herr Goebbels: "A lie told often enough will become public truth."
How true.
2
It is a very foolish situation that all English nations have arrived. They have to fight inside their own nation. It is quite a certainty that the US will be occupied by outsiders who have no affinity for English. I am sure that in my own lifetime, I will see Obama and others in prison as War Criminals. However, the funny part is that in nations like Sri Lanka, where countless brutalities were inflicted on populations that tried to keep out of the draconian rulers, not much of a mention is there. In English nations, their own criminal systems will allow the occupation of the land by outsiders.
In fact, there is no need to attack the US. All that is required is to shoot one one people and then promote the US to allow people to 'escape' to the US. They will build the beachheads for their native nations over there.
In fact, there is no need to attack the US. All that is required is to shoot one one people and then promote the US to allow people to 'escape' to the US. They will build the beachheads for their native nations over there.
1
This is not the first time the United States has officially, if secretly, and usually constitutionally questionable, killed, assassinated, eliminated or 'disappeared' someone (or many someones), for whatever reason. It'll happen again and again unfortunately.
2
Unbelievable that we would intellectualize the legality of killing Ben Laden. After the first paragraph I was disgusted. The U.S. is lost.
4
With such legal contorsions, any Citizen from Iraq would be authorised to kill GW Bush and Tony Blair. Hopefully both men with all their Neocons and Likud accomplices will be brought to an International Penal Court, and their countries will charged to pay HUGE REPARATIONS.
4
This article is replete with phrases, such as the president "could decide to violate international law" or could ignore requirements to keep other branches and officials of our government informed, hence disregard of domestic law. We are supposedly a nation committed to the Rule of Law, but there was no commitment to the Rule of Law in the discussions in the article, only dubious ways of disregarding the law, in some cases well established law.
This blatant disregard has become all too common in the way our government is functioning of late. There are numerous examples of lack of enforcement of laws the president does not like, the issuance of executive orders that fly in the face of the wishes of Congress, and legal sophistry to make things appear legal, when they are not. This is also not confined to the federal government. States and cities are behaving similarly, such as amnesty cities that harbor illegal immigrants and that refuse to cooperate with the federal government about their removal.
It is time we realize that, when anyone is above the law, particularly the government, there will soon be no law. We are long past the time of divine right monarchs, but it seems some of us in high government positions are still willing to follow the tactics and beliefs of divine right monarchs. We should be very wary of where this will lead.
This blatant disregard has become all too common in the way our government is functioning of late. There are numerous examples of lack of enforcement of laws the president does not like, the issuance of executive orders that fly in the face of the wishes of Congress, and legal sophistry to make things appear legal, when they are not. This is also not confined to the federal government. States and cities are behaving similarly, such as amnesty cities that harbor illegal immigrants and that refuse to cooperate with the federal government about their removal.
It is time we realize that, when anyone is above the law, particularly the government, there will soon be no law. We are long past the time of divine right monarchs, but it seems some of us in high government positions are still willing to follow the tactics and beliefs of divine right monarchs. We should be very wary of where this will lead.
18
Because I'm a liberal, I would in most cases want us to do everything by the book. The killing of Bin Laden was one of the exceptions. I'm glad - delighted - that Obama gave the okay, and that the SEALS were successful in taking him out. Frankly, I didn't care whether federal layers "paved the way" or not. I didn't want him captured alive. I wanted - dearly wanted - Bin Laden killed. There would have been nothing to gain from capturing him, and I can scarcely imagine anyone in any allied country blaming the US for killing him when they had the chance. I would have thought this would have been a no-brainer.
1
Yep. Those Navy SEALS are only props for the real heroes, those valiant lawyers toiling unappreciatedly in secret, heedless of the great risk to their reputations, to provide legal rationales for something no one would question anyway. Which pretty much shows one reason why we don't seem to win our wars anymore. Had we killed Hitler in WWII would we have demurred? Following a nightclub bombing, Ronald Reagan sent F-111's on a raid to hit Qaddafi personally - did he need legal authorization?
War is messy. By its very nature, collateral damage to people and property is guaranteed. But we are trying to turn it into a legal proceeding. Which accomplishes absolutely nothing while reducing operational effectiveness and increasing American casualties.
War is messy. By its very nature, collateral damage to people and property is guaranteed. But we are trying to turn it into a legal proceeding. Which accomplishes absolutely nothing while reducing operational effectiveness and increasing American casualties.
3
Actually, perhaps the second greatest achievement of the USA in WWII (after supporting the allied effort to win it) was insisting on the reinforcement of the notion of rule of law as embodied in the Nuremburg trials. Summary executions of the Nazi hierarchy would not have been opposed, but thoughtful minds - dare we say it, lawyers? - knew that a bigger message about immutable rules that were fundamental to humanity's interactions, even their violent clashes, was of paramount importance. The erosion of those notions is a sad development.
1
To Canadian:
The question of executing someone after hostilities have ended is of course a legal one, and trials, with full legal panoply is entirely correct in those cases. What I am talking about is legal wrangling about the fighting when it is still going on. Big difference. The fighting's over and what do you do with prisoners? Yeah, lawyers belong. But when you have to run it by your lawyer while you have guys on the battlefield is just plain nuts.
The question of executing someone after hostilities have ended is of course a legal one, and trials, with full legal panoply is entirely correct in those cases. What I am talking about is legal wrangling about the fighting when it is still going on. Big difference. The fighting's over and what do you do with prisoners? Yeah, lawyers belong. But when you have to run it by your lawyer while you have guys on the battlefield is just plain nuts.
1
It's amazing that the Administration engaged four "federal lawyers" to sort out the legal issues relating to the killing or capturing of a "high-value target" like Osama bin Laden, while other clandestine missions like rendition and targeted killings conducted by the CIA don't seem to deserve so much attention.
8
The celebrated NYT commentator Anthony Lewis remarked that the Cheney/Bush2 counsel memos rationalizing torture and other violations of international and domestic law read like the advice of Mafia counsel to the Don. If the memos treated in this article become available for review by reasonable third parties, I wonder whether they will seem any less vile.
5
As was provided by the Torture Memos, no matter what it is you want justified, you can find lawyers willing to do that. Don't know if these folks can still safely travel in Europe or not.
4
Many people in this thread, in one form or another, express concern about whether or not there was due process for Osama bin Laden. What, a jury trial in New York, with a bank of American lawyers at his disposal? Followed by, at most, a sentence of life in some upstate prison? And then, over the years, the man could have written a memoir or two? Or maybe earned an online college degree?
Obama, thank goodness, didn't have an ounce of the fretting Hamlet so many readers here display. When he was tested by the moment, he chose action, not dithering. As they say in Westerns, "The man needed killin."
It's too bad Hitler wasn't taken out in a similar fashion.
Obama, thank goodness, didn't have an ounce of the fretting Hamlet so many readers here display. When he was tested by the moment, he chose action, not dithering. As they say in Westerns, "The man needed killin."
It's too bad Hitler wasn't taken out in a similar fashion.
4
"...What, a jury trial in New York, with a bank of American lawyers at his disposal? Followed by, at most, a sentence of life in some upstate prison? And then, over the years, the man could have written a memoir or two? Or maybe earned an online college degree?..." And he would've undoubtedly found God and written a book about that, too.
So, in short, your position is that your enemy's bad behavior justifies your own. Try using that rationale in any real court, and see where it gets you.
1
Saddam Hussein, Ben Laden and Gaddafi were all killed when in basically defenseless positions. Rather than arrest them and put them on trial as was done in case of WW II war criminals at Nuremberg, the three were disposed of
before there was any chance for them to reveal what Western leaders likely never wanted the world to know. Think of what Hussein and Gaddafi could have revealed of the decades of the West's dealings in Middle Eastern politics (and wars) had justice been served. The three may have been found guilty and killed anyway, but how is the world not to be suspicious of all three being killed on the spot?
before there was any chance for them to reveal what Western leaders likely never wanted the world to know. Think of what Hussein and Gaddafi could have revealed of the decades of the West's dealings in Middle Eastern politics (and wars) had justice been served. The three may have been found guilty and killed anyway, but how is the world not to be suspicious of all three being killed on the spot?
5
even the Nuremberg trials were not fair as it had been unilaterally decided that the accusation doesnot need to prove waht they say. Former AT Ramsey Clark , who attended the trials, mentionned it many times.
Saddam Hussein was not killed on the spot. He was imprisoned first and there were hearing of a sort and then he was hung in semi-public. Other than that, I agree with what you have written.
Saddam Hussein was not "killed on the spot". He was tried by an Iraqi court and then hanged to death.
"There was also a trump card. While the lawyers believed that Mr. Obama was bound to obey domestic law, they also believed he could decide to violate international law when authorizing a “covert” action, officials said".
That is pure legal genius. By the same priciple, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is legal as long as it remains "covert". Brilliant. Did the same lawyers work for Putin? That would explain why he so stubbornly denies Russia's involvement - he just wants to go by the book and keep everything legal.
That is pure legal genius. By the same priciple, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is legal as long as it remains "covert". Brilliant. Did the same lawyers work for Putin? That would explain why he so stubbornly denies Russia's involvement - he just wants to go by the book and keep everything legal.
8
"...That is pure legal genius." That is an oxymoron.
1
Why are we gnashing our teeth about legalities? By any imaginable metric, bin Ladened needed to be killed and we killed him. End of report.
4
When the nation decides it's going to kill a person, it hardly matters how they seek to countenance it by using some lawyers. It's not that getting lawyers to go along with something makes it right. You can always find a lawyer to excuse and explain anything. This is not to say that bin Laden didn't merit being killed, it's just that it's beside the point that four lawyers were enlisted to excuse it. If the U.S. Government wanted to kill Jesus Christ, they could easily find and pay four lawyers to weigh in on the act with a legal opinion to support it.
13
Though I am not a practicing attorney, I am a student of law. I really appreciate Obama Administration's concern for tackling any legal issues after capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden certainly deserves death for his attack on innocent civilians not only in the U.S. but also elsewhere.
But the question that arises now is, has White House shown similar consideration while toppling so many governments, covertly? Were any legal issues considered while invading Iraq? (Iraq was invaded on a bogus intelligence report and the entire world was taken for a ride) Did the administration got any legal opinion while extending tacit support for toppling Md.Gadaffi in Libya? Iraqi invasion was a historic blunder and the entire Middle East is a mess now. If only Saddam and Gadaffi were alive today, would ISIS have come into existence? With the death of Osama, even Al Queda would be on the path to its burial.
Having acted in a haste and arrogant manner in many important matters, I wonder why the U.S. government took pains to think on legal issues on attacking UBL, who deserves a bullet on his head straightaway.
But the question that arises now is, has White House shown similar consideration while toppling so many governments, covertly? Were any legal issues considered while invading Iraq? (Iraq was invaded on a bogus intelligence report and the entire world was taken for a ride) Did the administration got any legal opinion while extending tacit support for toppling Md.Gadaffi in Libya? Iraqi invasion was a historic blunder and the entire Middle East is a mess now. If only Saddam and Gadaffi were alive today, would ISIS have come into existence? With the death of Osama, even Al Queda would be on the path to its burial.
Having acted in a haste and arrogant manner in many important matters, I wonder why the U.S. government took pains to think on legal issues on attacking UBL, who deserves a bullet on his head straightaway.
2
Anand, I concur strongly with your points. There is no reason for the US to go all out to take these two fellas, Saddam and Gadaffi, to appease certain opposition leaders within Iraq and Libya. By doing this favour to these dysfunctional groups the two countries turned chaotic, unruly and free for all.
Now the US miscalculated its foreign military strategy and created this mess. The ISIS problem will be there for a long time to come with too many casualties, displacements and economic woes for every country.
Now the US miscalculated its foreign military strategy and created this mess. The ISIS problem will be there for a long time to come with too many casualties, displacements and economic woes for every country.
As a law student you know very much about trial, so that an ancient Babylonian had 10 times deeper knowledge than you.
Attorneys routinely use whatever argumentative strategies are available to attempt to persuade a judge or a jury that their client's past actions were not in violation of the law. Attorneys also frequently are called upon to advise a client regarding the potential legal ramifications of a proposes future course of conduct, and how to structure that course of conduct to remain within the bounds of the law.
However, what the four attorneys mentioned in the article did when they prepared justifications for the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was essentially the same as what John Yoo and Jay Bybee did when they prepared poorly reasoned memoranda that ignored relevant case law in order to provide the GW Bush administration with a purported legal justification for the future torture of prisoners who were suspected of being (but not proven to be) affiliated with Al Qaeda.
However, what the four attorneys mentioned in the article did when they prepared justifications for the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was essentially the same as what John Yoo and Jay Bybee did when they prepared poorly reasoned memoranda that ignored relevant case law in order to provide the GW Bush administration with a purported legal justification for the future torture of prisoners who were suspected of being (but not proven to be) affiliated with Al Qaeda.
10
My problem with killing rather than capturing Osama bin Laden comes down to this: Dead men can't talk.
When we captured him alive (which we did), why didn't we interrogate him? No waterboarding or anything like that - our top interrogators know that doesn't work - but categorize him as a prisoner of war and use the fact that we have him to learn as much as possible about how Al Qaida operates and what it's planning. Osama bin Laden could have been a fount of useful information on, for example, ISIS, because that started as "Al Qaida in Iraq".
With that in mind, I'm reasonably sure that the real reason he's dead has something to do with what he did back when he was working with the CIA back in the 1980's.
When we captured him alive (which we did), why didn't we interrogate him? No waterboarding or anything like that - our top interrogators know that doesn't work - but categorize him as a prisoner of war and use the fact that we have him to learn as much as possible about how Al Qaida operates and what it's planning. Osama bin Laden could have been a fount of useful information on, for example, ISIS, because that started as "Al Qaida in Iraq".
With that in mind, I'm reasonably sure that the real reason he's dead has something to do with what he did back when he was working with the CIA back in the 1980's.
6
My Email to Professor Bruce Ackerman on October 29, 2015
RE: How 4 Federal Lawyers Paved the Way to Kill Osama bin Laden
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
OCT. 28, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/obama-legal-authorization-...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Dear Professor Ackerman,
Do you plan on writing an op-ed on the lawyers that gave legal sanction to the murder of Bin Laden?
From "The Decline and Fall of The American Republic," by Bruce Ackerman:
(1 ) p 44- The Politicized Military: All the lawyers giving their blessing to the Bid Laden assassination mission represented the military and its intelligence sources. Stephen W. Preston, the C.I.A.'s general counsel; Mary DeRosa, the National Security Council’s legal adviser; then-Rear Admiral James W. Crawford III, the Joint Chiefs of Staff legal adviser, and Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel.
(2) p 68: What happened to, “executive constitutionalism?” Why wasn’t the OLC in the DOJ or office council to the President included? P. 91 Does OLC only limit its actions to Congressional legislation that may be repugnant to the President?
(3) p 44- The Politicized Military: All the lawyers giving their blessing to the Bid Laden assassination mission represented the military and its intelligence sources.
(4) p 95- Is the OLC required to disclose to the public its legal backing immediately?
Sincerely
RE: How 4 Federal Lawyers Paved the Way to Kill Osama bin Laden
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
OCT. 28, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/obama-legal-authorization-...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Dear Professor Ackerman,
Do you plan on writing an op-ed on the lawyers that gave legal sanction to the murder of Bin Laden?
From "The Decline and Fall of The American Republic," by Bruce Ackerman:
(1 ) p 44- The Politicized Military: All the lawyers giving their blessing to the Bid Laden assassination mission represented the military and its intelligence sources. Stephen W. Preston, the C.I.A.'s general counsel; Mary DeRosa, the National Security Council’s legal adviser; then-Rear Admiral James W. Crawford III, the Joint Chiefs of Staff legal adviser, and Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel.
(2) p 68: What happened to, “executive constitutionalism?” Why wasn’t the OLC in the DOJ or office council to the President included? P. 91 Does OLC only limit its actions to Congressional legislation that may be repugnant to the President?
(3) p 44- The Politicized Military: All the lawyers giving their blessing to the Bid Laden assassination mission represented the military and its intelligence sources.
(4) p 95- Is the OLC required to disclose to the public its legal backing immediately?
Sincerely
3
yes, yes all well and good, how about addressing the fact that this occurred on Obama's watch, doesn't fit the evil Republicans are out there committing war crimes narrative does it? I'm sure you have an explanation of how killing Bin Laden was OK because the dems did it though?
2
this was in response to paul cohen
This is really quite simple. The laws of war specifically forbid any order which constitutes a refusal to grant quarter. A number of German and Japanese generals were shot or hanged (by Americans) immediately after the end of World War II for violating that law.
This mission, however, seems to have been designed so as to deny the target an opportunity to surrender, regardless of any lack of resistance. This is clearly in violation of the Geneva Convention. And the only answer offered to that point is an assertion that "the rules change if Americans are the perpetrators, 'cause we're the good guys".
The second argument is essentially one of "my enemy's bad behavior justifies my own". I don't think further comment is necessary.
bin Laden may well have deserved to die. Lots of people do. But he was killed, while offering no resistance, by what were (effectively) highly-trained and well-equipped assassins in an mission designed to make surrender (effectively) impossible. A mission carried out on the orders of a single man, while denying the target benefit of trial or an opportunity to defend himself.
So let's be honest. An opportunity was seen to take the man out, and he was duly take out. But It was not an act of war. It was not legal. It was, in fact, judicial murder. And all the legal tap-dancing in the world won't change that fundamental fact.
This mission, however, seems to have been designed so as to deny the target an opportunity to surrender, regardless of any lack of resistance. This is clearly in violation of the Geneva Convention. And the only answer offered to that point is an assertion that "the rules change if Americans are the perpetrators, 'cause we're the good guys".
The second argument is essentially one of "my enemy's bad behavior justifies my own". I don't think further comment is necessary.
bin Laden may well have deserved to die. Lots of people do. But he was killed, while offering no resistance, by what were (effectively) highly-trained and well-equipped assassins in an mission designed to make surrender (effectively) impossible. A mission carried out on the orders of a single man, while denying the target benefit of trial or an opportunity to defend himself.
So let's be honest. An opportunity was seen to take the man out, and he was duly take out. But It was not an act of war. It was not legal. It was, in fact, judicial murder. And all the legal tap-dancing in the world won't change that fundamental fact.
31
Except that it was not even submitted to judicial process. Instead seeking approval even by by a court of reactionary kangaroos, the dirty deed was passed on by loyal consiglieri (apparatchik lawyers) charged with constructing legal rationales for doing what the Don wanted done. Whatever the alleged high-minded rationales for this exercise in fig leaf finding, the practical effect was permanently to silence a witness with extensive knowledge of the devilish details of the salacious relationships between the House of Saud, the Titans of (nominally) American Commerce, and high officers of the United States Government presuming to act in the name of the people of the United States. Every account I have seen so far suggests that his capture and extraction would been little, if any, more difficult than his summary execution, assassination, homicide or murder.
As earlier in this brave new 21st century, the lesson is that the United States is governed by laws, not people; right up until it is considered expedient by the people charged with upholding the constitution and law of the United States that it be governed by them, rather than by the constitution and laws. As is the case with mere mortals, the President's hard cases make bad law, not to mention dangerous precedents for rationalizations of future executives.
As earlier in this brave new 21st century, the lesson is that the United States is governed by laws, not people; right up until it is considered expedient by the people charged with upholding the constitution and law of the United States that it be governed by them, rather than by the constitution and laws. As is the case with mere mortals, the President's hard cases make bad law, not to mention dangerous precedents for rationalizations of future executives.
3
Osama: 2,977 innocent lives murdered on 9/11/2001---legal? no, act of war? yes. Murder, yes.
Obama: 1 terrorist "executed" on 5/1/11---legal? yes, act of war? no. Murder? no. He was appropriately executed.
Obama: 1 terrorist "executed" on 5/1/11---legal? yes, act of war? no. Murder? no. He was appropriately executed.
" The laws of war specifically forbid any order which constitutes a refusal to grant quarter."
Really? Where?
Really? Where?
If the navy seals would have killed Osama bin Laden without the rationales developed by these lawyers what could have happened. Al Qaeda would have have sued the US govt. On one hand you kill innocent people in false attacks and drone strikes and call it collateral damage but need rationale to kill the most wanted man in the world. Americans are well known all over the world for their lack of commonsense.
14
If your childish and gratuitous insult of 300 million Americans is to be published in the comments section of the New York Times is to be published here, then allow me please to reciprocate in kind: based on your first three sentences, I conclude that Canadians are known the world over for not actually reading the articles they are supposedly commenting on.
The comments seem to indicate how fragile is the concept and legitimacy of international law. As with most forms of significant progress in human relations throughout history, it is a glorified two-step, only with ninety-nine steps backward for every hundred steps forward.
Those with absolutist opinions at either extreme do not understand the big picture. Condemning those who take the "opposite" stance as worthy of moral or practical contempt have, I expect, never been in the position of having to make such decisions.
Those with absolutist opinions at either extreme do not understand the big picture. Condemning those who take the "opposite" stance as worthy of moral or practical contempt have, I expect, never been in the position of having to make such decisions.
5
I wonder how many lawyers Bin Laden consulted before ordering the 9-11 attacks.
Seriously, this illustrates why we can not win an asymmetrical war; our enemies are not bound by the same constraints we place on ourselves and these constraints limit our ability to fight effectively.
Seriously, this illustrates why we can not win an asymmetrical war; our enemies are not bound by the same constraints we place on ourselves and these constraints limit our ability to fight effectively.
25
Why are US pols upset with the Russian contribution? They seem to know what they are doing in this type of nasty warfare. It goes something like this, they drop bombs, someone whines that they killed say 25 "civilians," and the Russians respond "no we didn't" and we're done here.
And I don't want to here a word from the "greatest generation" one of the dumbest statements (so Brokaw could sell the book he didn't write) of the dumb fantasy of "exceptionalism,"
If anyone would bother to read anything but jingoism, they;d be aware of the vicious campaign by USAF and Bomber command to "de-house" i.e., Kill German civilians in a terror campaign to match IS, with no lessons learned as the US dropped more ordinance on Viet Nam than all of WW2, despite the unequivocal findings that terror bombing is not effectibve in winning wars.
And I don't want to here a word from the "greatest generation" one of the dumbest statements (so Brokaw could sell the book he didn't write) of the dumb fantasy of "exceptionalism,"
If anyone would bother to read anything but jingoism, they;d be aware of the vicious campaign by USAF and Bomber command to "de-house" i.e., Kill German civilians in a terror campaign to match IS, with no lessons learned as the US dropped more ordinance on Viet Nam than all of WW2, despite the unequivocal findings that terror bombing is not effectibve in winning wars.
4
But if you were to have all constraints lifted, what could you do to effectively fight an enemy without a nation, without a uniform and without an army? ISIS is slight different, but holds millions of civilians hostage in its territory. Short of a mind control ray to magically compel all our enemies to line up in neat rows for slaughter, there is no quick and easy answer in lifting constraints.
1
If "winning an asymmetrical war" in your mind means abandoning the very principles that we fight for, then I'm not sure that would be a battle worth fighting. Not in my name, at any rate. We've won plenty of "asymmetrical wars" in the past: the Nazis and Japanese abhorrently used slave labour and murdered POWs, for example. What we have done, as you clearly haven't been paying attention, is lost the wars where we have lost sight of the fact that adherence to our principles are the only thing that makes us the good guys to begin with and where through our actions we sent out muddled and unconvincing ethical messages.
2
First the Bush lawyers paved the way to torture, then the Obama lawyers made an assassination on foreign ground legal.
However much we might have wanted to see Bin Laden get his comeuppance, we should care more about setting an example, and an expectation, of living up to our own and international law. In the long haul, the US will be far safer if it can be trusted.
Was Bin Laden doing anything at the time of his death that threatened American lives? If not, why was it worth flaunting the law to exact the ultimate punishment.
However much we might have wanted to see Bin Laden get his comeuppance, we should care more about setting an example, and an expectation, of living up to our own and international law. In the long haul, the US will be far safer if it can be trusted.
Was Bin Laden doing anything at the time of his death that threatened American lives? If not, why was it worth flaunting the law to exact the ultimate punishment.
20
Bin Laden was the head of the terrorist group that constantly attacked Americans so, yes, at the time of his death he was threatening American lives.
17
You're kidding, right? (Either that, or you're his lawyer, and you're upset that you lost out on the $20 million you were planning on billing the US govt for defending him through a half dozen appeal processes. "So your Honor, not only did Seal Team 6 not have a warrant, they did not even read my client his rights ...")
I think the answer is something like this: because we are not here to serve the law...the law is here to serve us (people).
If you really believe that Bin Laden was not a key architect of 9-11 and other terror attacks, then I cannot argue with you...he deserved due process. But, that's not the case, is it?
If you really believe that Bin Laden was not a key architect of 9-11 and other terror attacks, then I cannot argue with you...he deserved due process. But, that's not the case, is it?
Way too much "lawyering" going on here with respect to killing that bast**d, here's hoping we have less of it when we need to act in our own defense or in payback thereof.
18
War is not a community social project. It is about killing and destroying the enemy until they say they give up. It is idiotic to have to have a legal basis to kill bin Laden. We didn't need him as a prisoner. It was those computers and other information the SEALs cam back with that was important. We don't form a lawyer panel every time a drone lets loose a rocket or bomb. Our attempts to defeat ISIS or as President says, to degrade them is done at a distance. It hasn't worked ISIS is growing and tens of thousand volunteers are pouring Looking into the eyes of the enemy is what those SEALs and those who recently saved those prisoners did they didn't need lawyers but they got the job done. It's the politicians who want to lead by lawyers.
13
This calls for a reading of the law, enacted by Congress and signed by President Ford prohibiting assassinations of leaders. Does the law specifically prohibit assassinations of leaders of sovereign nations, AND "Other" leaders?
That might explain the attempts at legitimizing the killing by resorting to lawyers to try to justify it.
That might explain the attempts at legitimizing the killing by resorting to lawyers to try to justify it.
6
So the US military now needs lawyers to conduct military operations against terrorists? God help us.
10
If another state conducted an anti-terrorist operation within the US borders without US permission, you would sing another song, wouldn't you? Let's say, my country sends Spetznaz and carries out the whole thing in, for example, Texas, using the very false pretext of US government 'unwillingness' or 'inability' to deal with the danger and being afraid of losing the fish if it informs US officials. Doesn't sound legal, does it? I think that would do well.
Nothing new here except one thing - is this confirmation they were watching a live feed of the attack?
4
It was a daring raid no matter how one figures it. So much could have gone wrong but didn't. In operations with such high risk, sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.
5
In World War II in the Pacific, Americans planned and carried out a mission to kill the Japanese Admiral, Yamamoto, who commanded Japanese forces. Yamamoto planned and gave the order to execute the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
The mission was successful. Yamamoto's plane and it's escorts were shot down, killing Yamamoto.
There was no legal discussion. No one made excuses for killing Yamamoto or feared repercussions. No one cared if he was naked or hanging out in his bathrobe. There was no default option. There was no thought of taking him prisoner.
Yamamoto was a enemy combatant and a legitimate target. Yamamoto was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. The force that intercepted and killed Yamamoto was ordered to shoot down his plane and kill him.
When wars become legal battle fields that restrict targets and invite defeat then we can no longer protect and defend the American people.
Our enemies know that we are agonizing over how we can engage and kill the enemy and know that American forces are tethered to a leash. It is for that reason that enemies attack. They feel secure that our reprisal will be limited.
The enemy is unleashed. So should our forces.
"Engage and Destroy the Enemy". When anyone or any nation attacks the United States then the enemy should be certain the only order of the day for American forces is clear. The enemy must face certain destruction. Without legal agonizing.
The mission was successful. Yamamoto's plane and it's escorts were shot down, killing Yamamoto.
There was no legal discussion. No one made excuses for killing Yamamoto or feared repercussions. No one cared if he was naked or hanging out in his bathrobe. There was no default option. There was no thought of taking him prisoner.
Yamamoto was a enemy combatant and a legitimate target. Yamamoto was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. The force that intercepted and killed Yamamoto was ordered to shoot down his plane and kill him.
When wars become legal battle fields that restrict targets and invite defeat then we can no longer protect and defend the American people.
Our enemies know that we are agonizing over how we can engage and kill the enemy and know that American forces are tethered to a leash. It is for that reason that enemies attack. They feel secure that our reprisal will be limited.
The enemy is unleashed. So should our forces.
"Engage and Destroy the Enemy". When anyone or any nation attacks the United States then the enemy should be certain the only order of the day for American forces is clear. The enemy must face certain destruction. Without legal agonizing.
16
During WWII most of the American armed forces were legally segregated. The fact that America did something during WWII, does not make it right. You'll need to logically justify the execution of what was known to be a defenseless person by making a logical argument for execution without trial. These lawyers were paid by their client (Obama) to make that argument. While the lawyers' memos and underlying arguments have not been released, you're apparently already convinced.
7
Who do they think they are fooling? The only "law" that mattered here was the law of the jungle: "let's do it because we can get away with it", Geneva conventions, national sovereignty, and the Constitution be damned. All the rest is window dressing, to use a non-vulgar term.
22
Wow, I am just astonished by the anti-Obama comments here. This article makes it clear that Obama went several extra miles to do this right. He didn't reject the Geneva Convention as "quaint." He found an enemy who killed thousands or more, and made sure to get him in a legally defensible fashion. What would the carpers prefer? More Americans dead to make sure we could try Osama? He put himself in danger by attacking us. It might well be that surrendering during a raid was nearly impossible , but that's on him, not on us.
24
How many innocent people have we killed since, and how many others did we drive into the arms of terrorists by so doing? Many more than thousands - only not in our country, so I imagine that those we killed don't count.
We know that Osama bin Laden deserved how he ended up dead. No matter how many Federal lawyers were consulted. Makes those who shared together what they knew a the time and when it was going down except the American citizens that all is well that ends well. And this is the one of the exceptions no matter if Pakistan knew or not. Gives me a feeling of satisfaction that one of those four lawyers who is now head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was consulted. Whatever happened to the other three?
2
I would not have thought anything unusual about a simple order to the military to kill Bin Laden, but to go to great lengths to veil the operation in the law seems to be an attempt to legitimize something the administration probably thought was illegal to begin with.
10
That is an insult to the President, whom I doubt very much thought this operation was "illegal." Kudos to Obama and our military, who got this one right.
This is news? Government lawyers have justified torture, massive surveillance of U.S. citizens, bailouts of private banks and auto manufacturers and who knows what other programs of questionable legality. We are a nation with so many laws we have no laws. Is there anything the Federal Government can't do if it really wants to? From a legal standpoint, killing OBL was a walk in the park compared to some of these other activities.
10
it's almost like democracy and civilization and respect are just getting in the way of progress, america will always find it expedient to just kill whatever is in the way, and come up with some clever soliloquy by fancy lawyers to justify the actions, the latter being a minor inconvenience
8
He was murdered and probably could not have been convicted and that is why he was killed. If I were one of these lawyers i would crawl into a hole.
14
Either we are a nation following the rule of law, or we are just another rogue nation like so many others. This article seems to indicate we have willfully entered legitimate rogue state status. As the flawed but occasionally thoughtful John McCain offered when asked why we should not torture terrorists: "It is not about who they are, it is about who WE are." Truer words were never spoken, and we sadly now know the true character of our nation and leadership.
14
Looks to me like they made a good case. The fact that they had to make a case in novel circumstances doesn't mean they didn't.
3
President Obama is deemed weak when he opts not to send (the really strong and courageous) into battle unnecessarily. And now he is lambasted when he takes the most exacting route, for least risk of our people, to kill our enemies. He was also correct, answering Kroft on 60 Minutes, that he would win again, if he could run; who can reasonably doubt him after listening to current GOP contenders?
12
There are some things which simply go beyond the pale for most citizens of a country. By this I mean the destruction of the World Trade Center, attack on the Pentagon, thwarted attack on the White House, as directed by Osama bin Laden. Politically, there is no way that the killing of this guy under the circumstances in which it occurred, is going to cause much controversy. Of course, the politicians need to make all the legal preparations because, after all, we are a democracy and live by laws, but in the end we as a people will accept this, and I think will be able to silence foreign critics by simply asserting that this is simply our war and we get to deal with it as we deem fit. Since the crime goes so totally beyond the pale, I think said foreigners ultimately will accept this. Because, after all, it could happen to them.
9
What I have learned from this story is that the Obama Administration is as much into legal charades as the Bush Administration. However, for those saying the actions were clearly justified because we were (are?) at war with bin Laden and Al Qaeda, you might think about what the last two administrations (and maybe you) are wont to do with terror suspects.
They didn't want to treat terror suspects like criminal suspects, because they don't want to afford them any rights of trial, counsel, or any of the usual due process.
But if it's a war, then the rules of war should apply Yet, the US government doesn't want to afford bin Laden or Al Qaeda any rights under the Geneva Convention, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or any other relevant law.
Basically, we want to break all the rules, because we hate the bad guys. Okay, fair enough, they are indeed bad guys.
But if we're going to do as the barbarians do, we can at least be honest enough to admit it. Cut the charade and the intellectually dishonest legal-babble.
They didn't want to treat terror suspects like criminal suspects, because they don't want to afford them any rights of trial, counsel, or any of the usual due process.
But if it's a war, then the rules of war should apply Yet, the US government doesn't want to afford bin Laden or Al Qaeda any rights under the Geneva Convention, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or any other relevant law.
Basically, we want to break all the rules, because we hate the bad guys. Okay, fair enough, they are indeed bad guys.
But if we're going to do as the barbarians do, we can at least be honest enough to admit it. Cut the charade and the intellectually dishonest legal-babble.
25
"But if it's a war, then the rules of war should apply ..."
Then apply them. Start off with considering whether bin Laden falls within the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
Then apply them. Start off with considering whether bin Laden falls within the scope of the Geneva Conventions.
The buck stops with the constitutional law president. UBL had a right to a speedy trial. Instead, the US acted the way its enemies do.
10
Bin Laden was not an American citizen and had no right to a speedy trial or any other trial. I'm astonished at the disrespect for the President.
He wasn't killed. He was murdered. A shameful, cowardly un-American act.
15
No, the people on the airplanes, at the Pentagon, and in NYC were murdered.
Bin Laden was legally killed in an act of righteous vengeance because he made war on us.
Bin Laden was legally killed in an act of righteous vengeance because he made war on us.
11
For average readers, it may be easy to compare the killing of UBL as a "police" action. Lets be clear. In war, you kill your enemy any way you can. All the better if you kill him while he's sleeping, he's far less likely to shoot back.
14
Clearly, this administration, like the last, cherry-picked established law to satisfy their need to render an air of legitimacy to the law of the jungle.
The Mafia does that too. No surprise a C.I.A. "Lawyer" was involved. Or should I say "Consiglierie"?
Like all power freaks in the past, our leaders always use those we hate to win new lawless powers. It's a form of moral corruption.
The Mafia does that too. No surprise a C.I.A. "Lawyer" was involved. Or should I say "Consiglierie"?
Like all power freaks in the past, our leaders always use those we hate to win new lawless powers. It's a form of moral corruption.
8
No one feels bad for Bin Laden. He was a mass murderer
10
You can make a legal case for almost anything. Until a neutral judge rules for you after hearing both sides, the merits of your case are pure speculation. So let's be immensely grateful for this operation, but let's not pretend that its legality has been vetted. Let's honestly say: "Gains this high can outweigh the damage to the rule of law; but only gains _this_ high."
7
Seriously? The party of Lincoln made it clear as glass that they had one agenda, and that was to destroy our first African-American President. If the mission to take out OBL had failed, just imagine. I'm done
5
Whether it failed, and whether it was legal, are two separate questions.
It's funny reading all these rationales about whether or not President Obama had legal ground on which to stand to justify the killing (aka assassinating) of a war criminal.
For all those who call Bush/Cheney "war criminals" for authorizing torture, shouldn't Obama be similarly excoriated for droning hundreds of terrorists and - through collateral damage - innocent civilians? Is it more or less legal to drone someone to smithereens or inflict light torture to extract a confession or additional terror plots? Someone please explain this to me.
For all those who call Bush/Cheney "war criminals" for authorizing torture, shouldn't Obama be similarly excoriated for droning hundreds of terrorists and - through collateral damage - innocent civilians? Is it more or less legal to drone someone to smithereens or inflict light torture to extract a confession or additional terror plots? Someone please explain this to me.
10
Your question might be more difficult to dismiss if there were any evidence that torture worked better -- or as well -- as non-torture. Since the evidence is strongly against the efficacy of "light" (really?) torture, your point's not really telling.
Fascinating. Thank you NYT.
Here’s a question for people, but first, an incomplete preface.
I've been arguing for years that code is physics efficacious infrastructure for complex relationships in bio, cultural & tech networks: genetic, legal, moral, math, language, religious, monetary, software, etc. And that complexity, now accelerating exponentially, erodes the efficacy of code; e.g., significant portions of religious code; 1898 legal code; 1998 software code, etc.
Citing this: "The lawyers decided that a unilateral military incursion would be lawful because of a disputed exception to sovereignty for situations in which a government is '“unwilling or unable”' to suppress a threat to others emanating from its soil."
My question is: Could an astute, integrity-filled general (Eisenhower-like?) legally use the same rational to pull off a military coup on our soil because our nation is "unable" to halt the threat of climate change? Yes, there are many people working to mitigate climate change, but time is of the essence. Presently, it looks like we are unable to meet this time constraint. (Yes, it may already be too late; and yes, a world problem, i.e., incredibly complex.)
I believe in the vital importance of legal code for a functioning social structure, but again, I think its efficacy has been severely compromised by accruing complexity.
The question might also be framed: survival; or adherence to archaic code, now rendered as non-selectable culture code?
Your thoughts?
Here’s a question for people, but first, an incomplete preface.
I've been arguing for years that code is physics efficacious infrastructure for complex relationships in bio, cultural & tech networks: genetic, legal, moral, math, language, religious, monetary, software, etc. And that complexity, now accelerating exponentially, erodes the efficacy of code; e.g., significant portions of religious code; 1898 legal code; 1998 software code, etc.
Citing this: "The lawyers decided that a unilateral military incursion would be lawful because of a disputed exception to sovereignty for situations in which a government is '“unwilling or unable”' to suppress a threat to others emanating from its soil."
My question is: Could an astute, integrity-filled general (Eisenhower-like?) legally use the same rational to pull off a military coup on our soil because our nation is "unable" to halt the threat of climate change? Yes, there are many people working to mitigate climate change, but time is of the essence. Presently, it looks like we are unable to meet this time constraint. (Yes, it may already be too late; and yes, a world problem, i.e., incredibly complex.)
I believe in the vital importance of legal code for a functioning social structure, but again, I think its efficacy has been severely compromised by accruing complexity.
The question might also be framed: survival; or adherence to archaic code, now rendered as non-selectable culture code?
Your thoughts?
2
If we cannot accept the ugly realities of what we need to do to protect ourselves from ruthless killers who hate us we are lost. Endless debate about fine points of law ignores the suffering of thousands of people that day and for years afterward. I am glad he is gone.
15
Which is, no doubt, exactly the way that millions of Qaeda supporters view that organization's victims. Qaeda activists, they will say, don't debate endlessly -- they act to end the suffering of thousands of their own people by whatever means necessary.
It is precisely when we use the evil actions of others to justify our own that we become truly lost.
It is precisely when we use the evil actions of others to justify our own that we become truly lost.
1
Killing him was easier politically than keeping him alive and gathering intelligence.
Once again, the Obama administration does what is best politically for itself.
Once again, the Obama administration does what is best politically for itself.
5
The ambiguous nature of the war on terrorism -- neither conventional war nor a police action -- has raised an array of Constitutional questions which lawyers have failed to resolve. Prisoners of war or prisoners? Tried by jury or by alternate means or not tried at all? Targeted and murdered or indicted and accorded due process? Questioned pursuant to Miranda, more aggressively, or even tortured? Subjected to extraordinary rendition or extradited? The problem is that the war on terrorism is poorly defined and lacks universal rules of engagement. Making it up as we go along is not working at all. Government lawyers assigned to resolve fundamental issues are nothing but toadies for the President. They will justify torture and they will define the rules of engagement however the administration wants. This is no way to run a railroad. The Geneva Convention's rules of war have set a standard for fairness. A similar convention regarding the war on terrorism is long overdue.
16
All I can say is wow to this :
"lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances."
Pray tell, what exactly, aside from the obvious negatives of fostering a massive new recruiting effort for jihadists, has killing OBL accomplished? And what exactly was it that these lawyers thought it would accomplish so that it potentially justified massive collateral damage? Sure, we didnt drop a bunch of bombs, but ithat could have very well been the outcome, and the rationale would have been the same.
It has taken us 35 years to only start to see and act on the war on drugs being an absolute disastrous failure. How long is it going to take to figure out that the war on terror is even worse?
Enough.
"lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances."
Pray tell, what exactly, aside from the obvious negatives of fostering a massive new recruiting effort for jihadists, has killing OBL accomplished? And what exactly was it that these lawyers thought it would accomplish so that it potentially justified massive collateral damage? Sure, we didnt drop a bunch of bombs, but ithat could have very well been the outcome, and the rationale would have been the same.
It has taken us 35 years to only start to see and act on the war on drugs being an absolute disastrous failure. How long is it going to take to figure out that the war on terror is even worse?
Enough.
18
The "war on terror" is not optional. Terrorists are at war against civilization and will kill all of us if they can.
5
They weren't asked to consider the advisability of the action, only its legality.
But to answer your question, one thing it did was make Americans like me feel that some appropriate retribution had occurred. Maybe this helped recruit some Jihadists (while dissuading others) but it also helped strengthen American resolve, which counts too.
In addition, politically, it strengthens Obama's hand. He did what most of us regard S the right thing, which allows him to hold back when he thinks intervention would be the wrong thing.
Bush (arguably) went after Iraq because he failed to get Osama. Hillary Clinton supported him. Maybe if he'd had Obama's guts and courage, he wouldn't have let Osama escape and we wouldn't have created the horror we're now mired in.
But to answer your question, one thing it did was make Americans like me feel that some appropriate retribution had occurred. Maybe this helped recruit some Jihadists (while dissuading others) but it also helped strengthen American resolve, which counts too.
In addition, politically, it strengthens Obama's hand. He did what most of us regard S the right thing, which allows him to hold back when he thinks intervention would be the wrong thing.
Bush (arguably) went after Iraq because he failed to get Osama. Hillary Clinton supported him. Maybe if he'd had Obama's guts and courage, he wouldn't have let Osama escape and we wouldn't have created the horror we're now mired in.
1
American drones kill more civilians overseas than terrorists have or ever be able to do on our soil.
1
The violation of Pakistani sovereignty is a legitimate legal question for debate. The killing of Bin Laden is not. This was war. As the leader of the declared enemy, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden was a legitimate target. He was killed in battle. End of story.
What is admirable to me is that, as a country trying its best to found its actions on the rule of law (in a world where most do not bother to do so), an effort at legal justification was made at all. Where is Bin Laden's legal memo supporting 9/11? Where is the legal precedent justifying the actions that caused thousands to burn or leap to their death on that sunny September morning?
God Bless the U.S.A.
What is admirable to me is that, as a country trying its best to found its actions on the rule of law (in a world where most do not bother to do so), an effort at legal justification was made at all. Where is Bin Laden's legal memo supporting 9/11? Where is the legal precedent justifying the actions that caused thousands to burn or leap to their death on that sunny September morning?
God Bless the U.S.A.
25
That bin Laden found shelter in Pakistan most likely with the knowledge of the ISI makes any violation of Pakistani sovereignty by our forces on this mission meaningless.
8
Producing rationale before or after is only relevant to the killing party, I think. It's not difficult for people outside the U.S.A to just see one overbearing country setting a precedent by invading another to assassinate someone, no matter how few tears were shed.
10
This is the kind of article that is only interesting to lawyers
5
Seth E.: I'll bet those guys on that Seal team would disagree.
3
No. While not an Obama supporter having the reasons for the decision recorded before the act is the best way to go. Later it is hard to say if it went wrong : I was against it from the start. "
1
I disagree. I am not an attorney & found the minutia riveting! Very, very interesting!
Much better if he had faced a jury. We would all feel better by not stooping to his level.
6
unless the jury were to let him off, OJ-style. Then we wouldn't feel so good.
1
Oh, I get it.
This comment section is a little 'entrapment' session.
PB-in-DC
'I'm 58. Osama was a killer.He's dead.I'm glad.It doesn't bother me how he was killed.Good riddance.'
The rule taught to law students is that it is forbidden to kill an enemy hors de combat. 'hors de combat' means 'outside the fight' and is a war crime.
US committed a war crime when it shot bin Laden, who was unarmed.It matters to me and I hope other people.
This comment section is a little 'entrapment' session.
PB-in-DC
'I'm 58. Osama was a killer.He's dead.I'm glad.It doesn't bother me how he was killed.Good riddance.'
The rule taught to law students is that it is forbidden to kill an enemy hors de combat. 'hors de combat' means 'outside the fight' and is a war crime.
US committed a war crime when it shot bin Laden, who was unarmed.It matters to me and I hope other people.
25
Bin Laden said he didn't do 9/11. The government of Afghanistan offered to hand him over if we could prove he did, but Bush invaded them instead. Maybe Obama felt it would be embarrassing if he got a chance to go to court.
2
No, hors de combat applies to combatants who are unable to fight or run away. Being unarmed does not render one hors de combat. It's also perfectly legal and par for the course in combat to engage enemy soldiers who appear to be asleep. Bin Laden was a lawful target unless and until he effected a surrender, as described in the article. https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750050?OpenDocument
5
"The rule taught to law students is that it is forbidden to kill an enemy hors de combat. 'hors de combat' means 'outside the fight' and is a war crime."
Nonsense, as the entire definition shows:
Hors de combat, literally meaning "outside the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to combatants who are incapable of performing their ability to wage war. Examples include fighter pilots or aircrews parachuting from their disabled aircraft, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.
Nonsense, as the entire definition shows:
Hors de combat, literally meaning "outside the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to combatants who are incapable of performing their ability to wage war. Examples include fighter pilots or aircrews parachuting from their disabled aircraft, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.
Any lawyer or group of lawyers who knowingly permit their client (in this instance, the president) to break international law must have committed an illegal act themselves. Is the ABA paying attention?
15
I've been told by more than one lawyer that the Rules of Professional Conduct (for licensed attorneys) were written by lawyers for lawyers.
1
It seems many find satisfaction in "schadenfreude" in the Bin Laden assassination, the source for which is revenge. Revenge & justice are diametrically opposed.
Notwithstanding that misdirected revenge is largely what powered the US populace to support the ill-fated invasion & occupation of Iraq, it seems people assume that revenge, or a dubiously defined act of war, is the reason Obama had Bin Laden assassinated and not detained.
But what if they are wrong?
To date, there does not seem to be any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 911 attacks. For all we know the “Jalalabad Video” in which Bin Laden purports to take responsibility for the 911 attack was a fake.
I'm no fan nor student of history, but apparently not all conspiracies are theories. For example:
In 2003 former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened, and yet congress authorized the militaristic disaster of Vietnam based on this ruse.
In light of the disastrous foreign invasions & occupations the US has involved itself in since WW2, it seems we would want to look to who actually benefits from these wars, and who might prefer to bury the truth at sea...
Notwithstanding that misdirected revenge is largely what powered the US populace to support the ill-fated invasion & occupation of Iraq, it seems people assume that revenge, or a dubiously defined act of war, is the reason Obama had Bin Laden assassinated and not detained.
But what if they are wrong?
To date, there does not seem to be any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 911 attacks. For all we know the “Jalalabad Video” in which Bin Laden purports to take responsibility for the 911 attack was a fake.
I'm no fan nor student of history, but apparently not all conspiracies are theories. For example:
In 2003 former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened, and yet congress authorized the militaristic disaster of Vietnam based on this ruse.
In light of the disastrous foreign invasions & occupations the US has involved itself in since WW2, it seems we would want to look to who actually benefits from these wars, and who might prefer to bury the truth at sea...
15
I have a problem with the Jalalabad Video in that it was made after 9/11 and was done after the names of the people on board those aircraft had been released to the media. Thus, Osama bin Laden was able to speak with "authority" on the subject as he was as interested in the subject as the rest of us. That's not evidence that he knew about the operation beforehand much less that it was carried out by his own organization.
Osama bin Laden also would want to deflect attention from whoever carried out the attack by hinting that he was the one. That would allow the real attackers to run free.
Osama bin Laden also would want to deflect attention from whoever carried out the attack by hinting that he was the one. That would allow the real attackers to run free.
I am quite sure that I remember news coverage after 9-11 that mentioned Osama bin Laden approving of the attack before it occurred and then being pleased with the results of the attack that he ordered.
1
knowing what we know about terrorist hit lists, i seriously question the wisdom of naming the lawyers involved. i know there are good arguments to be made on the other side. it's a question of whether they're good enough at this time.
1
The whole process kind of reminds me of the Wannsee Conference.
4
I can see the moral argument for taking him alive. (Assuming that was a practical option on the ground.) Bring him back to US soil to face due process of law. A clear and beautiful contrast between his methods and ours. He murders innocent office workers; we give even Bin Laden due process of law. But there is a strong counterargument. While he is in a cell, waiting trial, his cronies take US hostages (innocent tourists or doctors or aid workers). An ultimatum is delivered: free him or we start beheading them. One neck at a time. Sure, the US "does not negotiate with terrorists", but it still would have been one neck at a time. Fine to take the moral high ground if it's not your neck. If you believe in due process for Bin Laden, I honour you. But put your own neck in harm's way, not that of some innocent. President Obama made the right call.
13
I think all the legal run up to the operation makes it look like an execution. Compare a commander in chief who issued an order himself to the group that demanded Bin Laden be captured so he could be questioned unless there was no other possible choice and they would be filmed, like cops. There is much more to 9/11 than has been covered and Bin Laden might have turned into a key, even, say, in 10 or 20 years. 9/11 wasn't Bin Laden's idea, according to one of his major taped releases, but he should have been captured if at all possible. The possible facts of a state's rights due to certain causes or circumstances does not trump the fact that Bin Laden may have become useful and it looks like the motivation for assassinating him in the field needs to be discovered.
2
Osama Bin Laden was complicit to the murder of over 3,000 innocent people. An unspeakable tragedy that is etched in our psyche. It is believed by many that the end justifies the mean. "Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes".
9
Unreal. You can see why Reagan was so popular: "Go ahead, make my day."
In our list of presidents in my lifetime we've had those who have taken action when needed, Eisenhower,, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton., and W who screwed up royally, but that's due to bad leadership and strategy, not bad law. Cheney would have ignored the lawyers anyway.
So are we admitting here that we cannot conduct a war on terror?
You can well imagine what the past would have been like: "Yes, weather is important, but General Eisenhower is awaiting the decision from the legal team before invading Normandy."
In our list of presidents in my lifetime we've had those who have taken action when needed, Eisenhower,, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton., and W who screwed up royally, but that's due to bad leadership and strategy, not bad law. Cheney would have ignored the lawyers anyway.
So are we admitting here that we cannot conduct a war on terror?
You can well imagine what the past would have been like: "Yes, weather is important, but General Eisenhower is awaiting the decision from the legal team before invading Normandy."
6
Nixon, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton., W, and Obama have all tried and failed at the "War on Drugs."
The war on terror can't be won as it's a war on idealism.
General Eisenhower was cleared by the legal team beforehand. Specifically, there was much debate on if the USA should enter WW II. The legislature first passed the Neutrality Acts in the 1930 prohibiting our involvement by the late 1930s and in 1941 versions of the Neutrality Act were pass that permitted greater degrees of U.S. involvement. On December 8, 1941 the U.S. congress passed a declaration of war on Japan. Congress then voted on December 10th to declare war on Germany and its allies. The German Reichstag (their Parliament) declared war against the USA on 11 December 1941. Those were legal actions that then enabled General Eisenhower to move ahead without needing to consult with lawyers at each step. Had Eisenhower wanted to attack a citizen in a uninvolved or neutral country it's certain he would have consulted with lawyers.
The war on terror can't be won as it's a war on idealism.
General Eisenhower was cleared by the legal team beforehand. Specifically, there was much debate on if the USA should enter WW II. The legislature first passed the Neutrality Acts in the 1930 prohibiting our involvement by the late 1930s and in 1941 versions of the Neutrality Act were pass that permitted greater degrees of U.S. involvement. On December 8, 1941 the U.S. congress passed a declaration of war on Japan. Congress then voted on December 10th to declare war on Germany and its allies. The German Reichstag (their Parliament) declared war against the USA on 11 December 1941. Those were legal actions that then enabled General Eisenhower to move ahead without needing to consult with lawyers at each step. Had Eisenhower wanted to attack a citizen in a uninvolved or neutral country it's certain he would have consulted with lawyers.
1
Well, if you choose to be deliberately obtuse there is no help for it. There is no evidence that the operation was delayed or compromised in trying to get legal opinion.
There was also a trump card. While the lawyers believed that Mr. Obama was bound to obey domestic law, they also believed he could decide to violate international law when authorizing a “covert” action, officials said.
------------------------------------
Really? A president could 'decide' to violate International law to carry out a covert action with impunity? Are these lawyers saying that Obama would be in violation of international law in authorizing Osama kill but who cares? Really?????
------------------------------------
Really? A president could 'decide' to violate International law to carry out a covert action with impunity? Are these lawyers saying that Obama would be in violation of international law in authorizing Osama kill but who cares? Really?????
5
I find this quite fascinating. Though at first glance there is a tendency to view this as akin to Bush's legal rationale for torture, careful reading seems to indicate they are completely different.
The torture memos in themselves tortured the ordinary use of the English language, especially the common understanding of what constitutes torture. These memos may be debatable on legal and precedential grounds, but they do not seem to twist language to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
I'm not sure of this, but I believe the torture memos were post facto CYA documents, whereas these memos were written before the fact.
The torture memos in themselves tortured the ordinary use of the English language, especially the common understanding of what constitutes torture. These memos may be debatable on legal and precedential grounds, but they do not seem to twist language to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
I'm not sure of this, but I believe the torture memos were post facto CYA documents, whereas these memos were written before the fact.
4
The fact is clear Obama ordered bin Laden murdered. You can support Obama's decision or not. That is a judgment call. That President Obama ordered bin Laden murdered is fact either way. The important question is did Obama make that decision because it was in the best interrst of the United States OR that Obama was concerned if bin Laden started talking various individuals inside the U.S. and outside might have been "embarrassed" by bin Laden's revelations ???
8
"Murder" is a legal term, not your "judgement call."
This was a judgement call.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...." - G.W. Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
This was a judgement call.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...." - G.W. Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
1
It is not murder to kill enemy combatants in war. Bin Laden declared war.
4
Amazing article about CYA. If I had been on the mission, I would have taken the shot in a NY Minute. Bringing him out alive would have been a legal nightmare. Could we have even proven his guilt to a 12 man jury without a full confession? Our legal system has criminals on Death Row for 10-20 years. I don't care 2 cents worth for any legal safeguards for OSB. I fully agree that we had to go in and get his body. During the Iraq fiasco, there were several reports of Saddam Hussein being killed by a bomb.
What a mistake that was taking down Hussein! He wouldn't have put up with ISIS.
What a mistake that was taking down Hussein! He wouldn't have put up with ISIS.
10
I'm 58. Osama was a killer. He's dead. I'm glad. It doesn't bother me how he was killed. Good riddance.
22
I'm 69 and couldn't agree more with "PB in DC". He's dead, get over it. Next????
4
If the only way to stop Bin Laden was to kill him, that would be an entirely understandable act of war. But we were in a position to capture him, and we killed him instead. It's not clear that this was necessary, and therefore not clear that it was a moral act. Definitely not a moral act if the motivation was to spare the US the vagaries of judicial proceedings against him.
8
The motivation was indeed "to spare", but the object of that verb was not some empty abstraction ("the vagaries of", and I bet you don't know the correct pronunciation of "vagaries"), but the real human lives of the hostages Al Qaeda would have taken and held as leverage for his release. They would have kidnapped tourists or doctors or aid workers and said "Release him or we start beheading". President Obama did the right (morally right) thing. It saved lives. Innocent lives. And, yes, it was an act of war. Bin Laden had declared war (remember?). If you declare war (and act on the declaration), you have no complaint if the enemy fights back.
5
It's amazing how much pleasure I still get out of this guy's death even now. Obama did a very good job of managing this process. A lot of people could have died along with this fellow. Mission Accomplished.
19
I'm a criminal attorney and Ive represented several people accused of murder. Like any criminal attorney, I zealously represent my clients against government allegations of past criminal law violations. However, there is a long-standing and unquestioned ethical principle that all criminal attorneys abide by: we can not advise clients in the future commission of crime (i.e. we can't tell them how to commit crimes and get away with them). These lawyers blatantly violated this most basic ethical principle and should be disbarred immediately. They advised an individual (Barack Obama) how to commit a crime (murder) and get away with it. They preemptively prepared the "alibi" their client could use if he was investigated for the murder he told them he would commit. On that point, 49 of 50 states, DC, and the ABA ethical rules require that an attorney, that actually knows that his client is going to commit murder and who has attempted to convince his client to change his plan, must then alert the authorities about this future crime (California, where I practice but where these attorneys do not, is the only exception to the "future crimes" requirement-- in that state, the attorney may contact authorities but is not ethically required to). Indeed, many prosecutors that I regularly work with wouldn't think twice about charging these lawyers with conspiracy to commit murder (if these lawyers' conduct related to advising some gang members about how to legally murder). Disbar them
78
Absurd. They did their duty, as did the soldiers who took out our enemy.
2
I am a lawyer too, who said that military reprisal against a sworn enemy of the USA is '' murder''. My colleague, I respectfully disagree with your thesis.
4
Kali, despite your desire to wrap this whole affair in civilian jurisprudence, it does not and can not apply. War is a different game and different rules must apply. Too many lawyers in the DoD have already had their hands in the tying of American combat arms. OBL was a war criminal combatant and I would no more offer him the reprieve of a trial than Adolph Hitler. The enemy laughs at your posture and at the insane legal requirements for engaging the enemy on the battle field. As they have so amply demonstrated, they fight to win. You want to fight for brownie points of political correctness.
11
You know, I understand why people in the comments are concerned over an "execution without trial." Ignoring the fact that Osama bin Laden was not a US citizen, so his entitlement to that right is in question, I have to wonder if any of those commenters were living in, or from, Washington DC and NYC during the 9/11 attacks. Cry about lack of due process all you want. When I heard the news in May 2011 that the man who had given me nightmares growing up, and had so cruelly taken thousands of lives almost ten years earlier died a sudden, violent death at the hands of the country he hated, I was happy. And I hope he went out as terrified as his victims did.
19
It seems many find satisfaction in "schadenfreude" in the Bin Laden assassination, the source for which is revenge. Revenge & justice are diametrically opposed.
Notwithstanding that misdirected revenge is largely what powered the US populace to support the ill-fated invasion & occupation of Iraq, it seems people assume that revenge, or a dubiously defined act of war, is the reason Obama had Bin Laden assassinated and not detained.
But what if they are wrong?
To date, there does not seem to be any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 911 attacks. For all we know the “Jalalabad Video” in which Bin Laden purports to take responsibility for the 911 attack was a fake.
I'm no fan nor student of history, but apparently not all conspiracies are theories. For example:
In 2003 former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened, and yet congress authorized the militaristic disaster of Vietnam based on this ruse.
In light of the disastrous foreign invasions & occupations the US has involved itself in since WW2, it seems we would want to look to who actually benefits from these wars, and who might prefer to bury the truth at sea...
Notwithstanding that misdirected revenge is largely what powered the US populace to support the ill-fated invasion & occupation of Iraq, it seems people assume that revenge, or a dubiously defined act of war, is the reason Obama had Bin Laden assassinated and not detained.
But what if they are wrong?
To date, there does not seem to be any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 911 attacks. For all we know the “Jalalabad Video” in which Bin Laden purports to take responsibility for the 911 attack was a fake.
I'm no fan nor student of history, but apparently not all conspiracies are theories. For example:
In 2003 former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened, and yet congress authorized the militaristic disaster of Vietnam based on this ruse.
In light of the disastrous foreign invasions & occupations the US has involved itself in since WW2, it seems we would want to look to who actually benefits from these wars, and who might prefer to bury the truth at sea...
1
I can imagine the way Americans feel about 911 as I am myself very sad because of all these innocent lives taken.
However I have to say that I am very surprised by the unanimous approval of the work of these lawyers and all the "these lawyers are the real heroes" that I read in many comments.
I was thinking something very different when reading this article. I was thinking that it is frightening to think that our governments can get anything sorted, even a killing in foreign country by letting four lawyers brainstorm for a couple of day.
I think it's a good thing that this man is dead, it would have been terrible to have him make propagandia in jail, and be fed with the tax payer money. But I also think, there's something shameful in what these lawyer did.
The aspect : "we've located our enemy in a foreign country and we need to clear the path as the government there won't cooperate" is perfectly legitimate. However the aspect "there's not even a need to plan for the case where he gets out of it alive" is troubling. What's more troubling is that he would have had a death sentence.
America looks great today, as it has killed its ennemy, but it would have looked even greater if it had given a lesson of democracy to the world by showing all nations that even the worst ennemies of the US are granted a trial. It would have been such an image to see victims testify before BL. Obama would have looked like the garant of justice who has let Americans judge their ennemies.
However I have to say that I am very surprised by the unanimous approval of the work of these lawyers and all the "these lawyers are the real heroes" that I read in many comments.
I was thinking something very different when reading this article. I was thinking that it is frightening to think that our governments can get anything sorted, even a killing in foreign country by letting four lawyers brainstorm for a couple of day.
I think it's a good thing that this man is dead, it would have been terrible to have him make propagandia in jail, and be fed with the tax payer money. But I also think, there's something shameful in what these lawyer did.
The aspect : "we've located our enemy in a foreign country and we need to clear the path as the government there won't cooperate" is perfectly legitimate. However the aspect "there's not even a need to plan for the case where he gets out of it alive" is troubling. What's more troubling is that he would have had a death sentence.
America looks great today, as it has killed its ennemy, but it would have looked even greater if it had given a lesson of democracy to the world by showing all nations that even the worst ennemies of the US are granted a trial. It would have been such an image to see victims testify before BL. Obama would have looked like the garant of justice who has let Americans judge their ennemies.
6
Anyone on here posting tears for Bin Laden is a pathetic excuse for an American. I was at the Tower on 9/11 and I hunted and killed Al Queda in Iraq. I don't expect any thank you's, gratitude, or special treatment. The only thing I expect is for you to be thankful that there are men and women who put lives on the line so that you can live in blissful ignorance of the very real monsters that would gladly cut your throat for pure sport.
21
So sorry, but I (and I'm sure many others) are unimpressed with your story. Furthermore, I haven't read anyone on this thread crying tears for Bin Laden. If you're so convinced of the righteousness of your "cause" then perhaps you should be glad that most of the people here are angered by the lack of integrity and outright manipulation of "the law" that you were apparently sworn to protect. Oh, but of course, you seem to be able to rationalize away the rule of law when it's convenient. Right?
3
Paolo, you might not expect any thank yous or gratitude, but from me at least you have them.
ExCook, you need to take a refresher course in Law (101). It is not murder to kill a sworn enemy combatant (who has declared war and acted on the declaration). No "rationalization" here, just simple reason, plain recta ratio (as John Milton would say).
ExCook, you need to take a refresher course in Law (101). It is not murder to kill a sworn enemy combatant (who has declared war and acted on the declaration). No "rationalization" here, just simple reason, plain recta ratio (as John Milton would say).
4
Please explain which laws you speak of? Are you referring to the international laws that Pakistan completely ignored by protecting Bid Laden and Taliban leadership inside their borders? Or are you speaking about the international laws that Pakistan ignored by providing intelligence to the Taliban so they could smuggle roadside bombs into Afghanistan to maim and kill Americans? Maybe you are referring to the international laws that Pakistan ignores by their continual support of groups attempting to destabilize the legitimate governments of Afghanistan and India? Or could it be their treatment of women by refusing to prosecute rapists and men who throw acid on women's faces because they do not want to marry them? Is it any of these laws that I am supposedly ignoring that you are referring to?
2
I sat and watched in horror at the iconic signals of WWIII trailing into the NY skies on that fateful day. I saw good, honest fearful citizenry taking the decision to leap to their deaths, like a kangaroo will burst into the flames of a wild-fire when all escape routes are exhausted.
As a Vietnam vet my mind raced to the relatives of lost loved ones who would soon be importuning the Heavens for answers at the presence of manifest insanity, for that is what it is that calls us to foreign shores and now at home to engage those who would murder us all, we who thrive in democracy.
Today I read the post-event analysis of your many commentators, dotting the i's and crossing the t's over an event, in simple military terms, was an ambush...and all the president's men simply went into ambush-drill. That is, when the chips are down, when there are too many unknowns, when the section is imperilled, all soldiers will turn to the direction of the enemy, shouting at top voice, all weapons firing.
The war came to the home-front. What brought it here? That all-pervading international democratic apathy towards the unexpected. That creeping and creepy political correctness that emasculates our resolve to be shocked, to be vigilant, to protect ourselves? To demand questions of politicians and undercover armies to such a degree that we analyse and criticise and send more messages to zealotry that such attacks also successfully undermines due process? Some stuff should stay under wraps.
As a Vietnam vet my mind raced to the relatives of lost loved ones who would soon be importuning the Heavens for answers at the presence of manifest insanity, for that is what it is that calls us to foreign shores and now at home to engage those who would murder us all, we who thrive in democracy.
Today I read the post-event analysis of your many commentators, dotting the i's and crossing the t's over an event, in simple military terms, was an ambush...and all the president's men simply went into ambush-drill. That is, when the chips are down, when there are too many unknowns, when the section is imperilled, all soldiers will turn to the direction of the enemy, shouting at top voice, all weapons firing.
The war came to the home-front. What brought it here? That all-pervading international democratic apathy towards the unexpected. That creeping and creepy political correctness that emasculates our resolve to be shocked, to be vigilant, to protect ourselves? To demand questions of politicians and undercover armies to such a degree that we analyse and criticise and send more messages to zealotry that such attacks also successfully undermines due process? Some stuff should stay under wraps.
4
Bin Laden killed. The continuing mythology of Washington bureaucrats. Bin Laden is gone, Saddam Hussein, Khadaffy and the madness continues on regardless of these supposed great removals.
5
A lawyer's job is not to justify her employer's action. It is immaterial whether the justification happens before or after the fact. The very fact that four high ranking government lawyers agreed on a project that their masters would no doubt like to execute should be viewed with suspicion.
6
A lawyer's job is to represent the interests of his client. Any lawyer who is worth his salt can construct an argument for anything. These lawyers conclusions are not an "opinion" but simply an indication of what their employer wanted to do.
3
Wrong. The example of a lawyer worth his salt is Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of the Navy who rather than going along with John Yu's "legal" justification of torture, decided to oppose it, eventually leaving the Navy. It is a credit to the legal profession that lawyers like Alberto Mora exist.
I don't think I read a thing here about why they killed him, only a discussion of the possibility. It was probably a mistake, but Obama is loath to criticize the military. Who would not want to capture the guy, even at the expense of a couple of soldiers? His strategic value was unmeasurable.
Law is what we decide it is and, besides, finding a way to burn heretics has never been a problem.
The point, as Ruby knew, was that dead men don't testify. Bring him back alive and too many questions in discovery that might lead to negating all that 9/11 propaganda and Bush-Cheney having to explain to the American people why so many of the killers were sponsored by the Saudi family and they let them go.
Oh, well, SEAL Team just a bunch of assassins working for the continuing fraud cleaned up most of the mess by putting a couple of bullets through his head. Worse, though, the American people bought the story, the lie, (and the "official" pictures) that he was buried at sea by the captain and crew of the USS Carl Vinson.
Even the old Politburo of the Stalin era would be impressed, a job well done.
The point, as Ruby knew, was that dead men don't testify. Bring him back alive and too many questions in discovery that might lead to negating all that 9/11 propaganda and Bush-Cheney having to explain to the American people why so many of the killers were sponsored by the Saudi family and they let them go.
Oh, well, SEAL Team just a bunch of assassins working for the continuing fraud cleaned up most of the mess by putting a couple of bullets through his head. Worse, though, the American people bought the story, the lie, (and the "official" pictures) that he was buried at sea by the captain and crew of the USS Carl Vinson.
Even the old Politburo of the Stalin era would be impressed, a job well done.
11
Since the U.S. can do such things with impunity, can e.g. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea or any other nation do something similar on American soil?
W. famously said "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It still seems to be so, nothing changes - ever.
W. famously said "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It still seems to be so, nothing changes - ever.
5
Yes. Russia and N. Korea seem to be able to kill foreign civilians with impunity.
1
It is difficult for me to swallow this because I voted twice for this man. the first time because I thought he'd do something about the banks and Wall Street. Within 6 months he first showed his yellow streak and continued to do so on the public option for health care. And on and on and on.
The second time I voted for him on the now time honored reason for us leftists; the lesser of two evils. Enough. I will not, cannot vote for Hilary and a continuation of this political horror.
The second time I voted for him on the now time honored reason for us leftists; the lesser of two evils. Enough. I will not, cannot vote for Hilary and a continuation of this political horror.
13
I hope you do not find that you regret not voting for Hillary. The Republican contenders are frightening.
As a former Navy Carrier sailor, and CO of a terrific officer lost in the Pentagon attack, it pleased me no end to find out that bin Laden's body had been tossed into the sea with the rest of the trash.
16
Fellow Navy vet here and I feel the same.
3
And if you read Seymour Hersh's account, you;d be even more pleased that what little was left of OBL was thrown out of the helicopter into the mountainside - no burial to bother with. Of course, if Hersh's account is to be believed, this was a plain old assassination, carried out with the full knowledge and complicity of the duplicitous Pakistanis. Not much room for heroism on part of the Seals though. Guess you win some, lose some!
3
Hersh is a bitter old man crying for attention. His version is far less believable than the previous version. Just old hatred for his government and its institutions mixed with a fertile imagination.
We all have to start by saying we did not like Osama, but like the handsome black guy that was having sex with the white women willing, then we needed the black guy lynched in the day. White women did not start fining black men attractive in 2015, but in 1955 having sex with a white woman was a lynching offense.
So America did not have the evidence to convict Osama, so we could not allow the Attorney General Office to look as if they had anything to do with the execution of Osama.
I had no problem in prosecuting Osama and if found guilty I was have pulled that switch or fired the shot of gave the dude the drugs, but as black men have for 300 yrs been put to death for something they did not do, and a mob and in this case some Navy Seals or CIA agents found that old Oak Tree and lynched Osama with 3 shots to the face?
The three shots to the face tells me they were not sure and don't know if it was Osama because you destroyed the evident of visual evidence who it was you shot. Don't believe some DNA evident of somebody you did not have DNA evidence know from that person! Don't buy it!
Now we got two clown seals running around with books talking about they both were the one that killed Osama!
So America did not have the evidence to convict Osama, so we could not allow the Attorney General Office to look as if they had anything to do with the execution of Osama.
I had no problem in prosecuting Osama and if found guilty I was have pulled that switch or fired the shot of gave the dude the drugs, but as black men have for 300 yrs been put to death for something they did not do, and a mob and in this case some Navy Seals or CIA agents found that old Oak Tree and lynched Osama with 3 shots to the face?
The three shots to the face tells me they were not sure and don't know if it was Osama because you destroyed the evident of visual evidence who it was you shot. Don't believe some DNA evident of somebody you did not have DNA evidence know from that person! Don't buy it!
Now we got two clown seals running around with books talking about they both were the one that killed Osama!
4
Trials are for people who commit civil crimes, not for enemy combatants. You can question how "enemy combatant" is defined and rightly question on if any definition can avoid leading to a slippery slope, but under any definition of the term, Mr. Bin Laden was nowhere near that precarious edge.
3
Bless you, Joe.
1
Joe I don't know what Osama actually was because the government failed to bring him to trial. Look I get it that we hated him, and if we put him on trial and he beat the case we could still kill him if we wanted, as we did. You don't understand that on a battlefield your not allowed to simply shoot unarmed combatants.
Why do you think we have Gitmo or when we captured soldier from the South in the Civil War, we did not just shoot the prisoners, and Osama was a capture prisoner.
You must give the worst among us a fair trail because it only make more terrorist. We are the strongest military the world have ever seen, but ISIS is still fighting and cutting off heads, because it is the unfair treatment throughout the history that made these people hate us. These people now want to be like the legion of Osama because he took on the Great Satan.
However it the young soldiers who have to defend all the back decisions of weak leaders!
Why do you think we have Gitmo or when we captured soldier from the South in the Civil War, we did not just shoot the prisoners, and Osama was a capture prisoner.
You must give the worst among us a fair trail because it only make more terrorist. We are the strongest military the world have ever seen, but ISIS is still fighting and cutting off heads, because it is the unfair treatment throughout the history that made these people hate us. These people now want to be like the legion of Osama because he took on the Great Satan.
However it the young soldiers who have to defend all the back decisions of weak leaders!
I think the use of these lawyers to paper decisions was politically expedient, but if seems unlikely they would have actually influenced the decision to proceed. What these lawyers were really doing was papering an already determined conclusion. It would have been complete political suicide to not kill or capture Bin Laden and there is no way that, had the decision been made not to proceed, it would have remained secret forever. I think the most interesting thing is leaving Eric Holder out of the picture until it was too late for him to have any influence. Is it possible that even Obama knew how incompetent and troublesome Holder could be?
2
But see Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books, 21 May 2015. We may find that Mr Savage has been "played."
5
Wow, what brilliant legal minds we have here! This woulld be funny if it weren't about killing a human being. No matter how how guilty and no matter how deserving of death that human being may be, our Constitution requires "due process". He's got to be arrested, brought into open court, formally charged, and afforded all the rights and protections the law requires. In bin Laden's case, convction woulld be certain; he openly boasted on a video about the successs of his "brilliant" plan to kill 3,000 people.
So why all the legal hair-splitting? Simply to to reject that option. Because, if captured alive, bin Laden's devoted followers (there are plenty of them) would then take hostages. Probably many of them, and certainly some Americans. Al Qaeda wouldn't demand money; it'll be free bin Laden or else.
So that's what these lawyers had to do, to come up with some kind - any kind - of legal argument to justify "terminating" OBL and avoiding that horrible dilemma. But I don't see why the writer, Mr. Savage, couldn't have just said that in the first place.
So why all the legal hair-splitting? Simply to to reject that option. Because, if captured alive, bin Laden's devoted followers (there are plenty of them) would then take hostages. Probably many of them, and certainly some Americans. Al Qaeda wouldn't demand money; it'll be free bin Laden or else.
So that's what these lawyers had to do, to come up with some kind - any kind - of legal argument to justify "terminating" OBL and avoiding that horrible dilemma. But I don't see why the writer, Mr. Savage, couldn't have just said that in the first place.
1
due process does not apply to non citizens outside th border of th usa
none of th provisions of th constitution does
none of th provisions of th constitution does
1
You're applying civilian criminal law when the body of law used was international humanitarian law, i.e. the law of armed conflict. Under Geneva, OBL was due no more "due process" than an enemy soldier on the battlefield.
1
It is troubling that TNYT continues to downplay and tiptoe around the most important fact in this story, namely, that our government staged a commando raid into Pakistan for the purpose of executing bin Laden, rather than bringing him back alive, which the team could easily have done and was obviously under orders not to do.
This has been obvious from day 1, as I wrote to TNYT on May 2, 2011, and went on to ask:
What believable reason could our government have had to chose to kill rather than to capture OBL except that the most important goal was to silence him, to prevent him from revealing what he knew in any public forum, such as, a court of justice?
What did OBL know that decided our government to cause [enormous] harms to American security and intelligence just to prevent him from revealing [to the American people]?
Four years later these questions are still hanging fire. When, if ever, will the American people be given the answer?
This has been obvious from day 1, as I wrote to TNYT on May 2, 2011, and went on to ask:
What believable reason could our government have had to chose to kill rather than to capture OBL except that the most important goal was to silence him, to prevent him from revealing what he knew in any public forum, such as, a court of justice?
What did OBL know that decided our government to cause [enormous] harms to American security and intelligence just to prevent him from revealing [to the American people]?
Four years later these questions are still hanging fire. When, if ever, will the American people be given the answer?
16
This story just reinforces the notion of cynical pre-determination, which Seymour Hersh's LRB article alluded to, in the way in which the OBL raid was handled by the administration. The legal arguments made it a fait accompli that Bin Laden wouldn't be taken alive and if taken alive, he would see not a US courtroom but GITMO; both scenarios that would keep the veil on likely Pakistani complicity in hiding him for so long. These labyrinthine efforts to shield the operation from public courts would also agree with Hersh's allegations of the raid being a walkthrough with Pakistani cooperation, an inconvenient fact that the Paks won't want coming out since the Pakistani people are overwhelmingly pro Bin-Laden and anti-America.
It is also rather Orwellian how much effort is put into following the letter of Islamic law in Bin Laden's alleged burial at sea, to the extent of contacting his home country of Saudi Arabia only because it is already known that the Saudis won't want anything to do with him or his body. The administration or right thinking Americans within it should expose the lies that have been told about the OBL raid, the complicity of Pakistanis in shielding this mass murderer and the willingness of our government to go along with it.
It is also rather Orwellian how much effort is put into following the letter of Islamic law in Bin Laden's alleged burial at sea, to the extent of contacting his home country of Saudi Arabia only because it is already known that the Saudis won't want anything to do with him or his body. The administration or right thinking Americans within it should expose the lies that have been told about the OBL raid, the complicity of Pakistanis in shielding this mass murderer and the willingness of our government to go along with it.
4
A day late and a dollar short. If Bill Clinton had ordered him killed when he had the opportunity we would have this mess on hands now and the World Trade center would still be standing.
5
Don't you remember the Republican reaction when Clinton tried? Cruise missiles into Afghanistan? And the Republicans claimed he was just trying to divert attention from their impeachment entrapment exercise? Remember that?
1
OBL should have been gone years ago, but for Bill Clinton, who was undoubtedly focused on his putting and other mischievous things
6
Personally I find it kinda sad that it took four lawyers a few months to justify killing a guy who took credit for killing thousands of people. That said, I find it suspicious that Obama refused to discuss the legal framework with his own hand picked attorney general.
2
The Attorney General is our country’s chief law enforcement officer. This wasn’t law enforcement; it was, and is, war.
1
Reminds me of the scene from the movie "American Sniper" where Bradley Cooper playing Cris Kyle is reminded by his spotter as he is about to take a shot that if he is wrong he will go to Leavenworth. In this scene the kid and the woman did have a grenade.
Everybody knows that Pakistanis actually sold bin Laden on condition that he will not be taken alive. This is because of bin Laden's opening mouth and lots of other people from Pakistan will be named specially Pakistani senior intelligence and military personnel for shielding bin Laden that long period of time. Actually Operation Neptune Sphere is not all that hair raising as initially presumed. Because Pakistanis were informed and US Special Forces knew that there will not be any resistance to this operation.
6
C.Y.A.I.A.D.? I'm fine with that. It doesn't bother me at all what they had to do to take bin Laden out. Mission accomplished this time as far as I'm concerned. Bin Laden would have killed any one of these people and put their heads on a pole if he had the chance.
4
I say: I prefer bin Laden dead, rather than captured. I think it sent a clear message to his disciples.
5
I'm struck by how many people still unquestionably believe the government and mass media reports. Other reports strongly suggest that several of the deaths in the compound were executions. Also clear that they didn't just execute everyone and used some discretion. Some unarmed woman charged the soldiers and they just shot her in the leg.
8
SO why do you believe any of it?
The good thing about the lawyers arguing in "intense secrecy" was that if somehow, against all logic, they concluded that Bin Laden shouldn't be killed, the president could have quietly ignored their report and turned the issue over to other less squeamish attorneys.
4
Very good case for why we need more lawyers
1
I think there's four people that just went to the top of the Waterboarding List.
4
Well done. Contrast this mission with the entire Iraq debacle and W's half-hearted meanderings in Afghanistan, which made it necessary. A paradigm for the regrettable but necessary endeavors that we must pursue in the years to come.
11
President Obama blew it. It was far more important to capture Osama bin Laden alive, than to kill him.
It was so important to capture Osama bin Laden alive, that I still doubt he was killed as described. But if he were killed, President Obama should have been quite upset.
I do understand why the US government would have stated Osama was killed, after he was captured alive. That would make a lot of sense. But actually killing him when he could have been captured alive would have been irrational and counter-productive. Furthermore, whoever actually killed Osama, or ordered his killing, should have been heavily criticized and received demerits from President Obama.
It was so important to capture Osama bin Laden alive, that I still doubt he was killed as described. But if he were killed, President Obama should have been quite upset.
I do understand why the US government would have stated Osama was killed, after he was captured alive. That would make a lot of sense. But actually killing him when he could have been captured alive would have been irrational and counter-productive. Furthermore, whoever actually killed Osama, or ordered his killing, should have been heavily criticized and received demerits from President Obama.
3
They had a live video feed - LIVE. So your doubt is a bit misplaced.
1
Because capturing him would have done what exactly?
1
Really? Why would it be so important to capture him alive? And please don't say that he could give up intelligence. The mass murderer knew very little about operations and was a little more than a figure head.
At the end of the day, killing anyone outright looks like "let's just shut them up". I don't think it matters what section of military/security team. Whether police officers or Navy Seals shooting someone for "deemed" greater security seems expedient and thoughtless. What did Osama bin Laden know that the White House was afraid would get out? These are the questions that should be asked.
11
A bunch of lawyers creating a paper trail to justify what a client wants to do (in this case, kill bin Laden) is not brilliant, heroic, or extraordinary. It is common. Even in the highest echelons of national security, we have seen this before with, for example, the torture memo(s).
14
Murder and revenge. The actual words that describe what happened is not used in the article, of course. I have watched the US drift morally for decades and the Bin Laden murder is not the first, only, or last instance of a truly immoral act for the entire world to see.
The American empire can murder anyone it wants at anytime and anywhere. Some Americans wonder at individual gun violence in our country. Some wonder at police violence in our country. Almost nobody wonders about our violence in the world.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ruminations of powerful, intelligent, and morally bankrupt lawyers described in the article.
But perhaps the best way to think about America at this point in its moral decline is the following. "One proposal Mr. Obama considered, as previously reported, was to destroy the compound with bombs capable of taking out any tunnels beneath. That would kill dozens of civilians in the neighborhood. But, the officials disclosed, the lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances. "
Does anyone not believe that the US is willing to consider anything for the purpose of revenge and empire?
The American empire can murder anyone it wants at anytime and anywhere. Some Americans wonder at individual gun violence in our country. Some wonder at police violence in our country. Almost nobody wonders about our violence in the world.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ruminations of powerful, intelligent, and morally bankrupt lawyers described in the article.
But perhaps the best way to think about America at this point in its moral decline is the following. "One proposal Mr. Obama considered, as previously reported, was to destroy the compound with bombs capable of taking out any tunnels beneath. That would kill dozens of civilians in the neighborhood. But, the officials disclosed, the lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances. "
Does anyone not believe that the US is willing to consider anything for the purpose of revenge and empire?
12
Adm. Isoruku Yamamoto, CIC of Japan's Combined Fleet, chief strategist behind the Pearl Harbor sneak attack that wrecked the U.S. Pacific Fleet on Dec. 7, 1941 and during most of 1942, suffered the same fate; by different means.
Joke: How many White House lawyers does it take to come up with a rationale to kill an international terrorist leader?
7
Dead or alive, he was going to be a martyr. And a reason for retribution from these medieval groups. Take the 'blind sheik,' supposedly a/the reason for all these despicable attacks.
Losing my beautiful 25 year old niece on 9/11, and fully immersed in that date ever since, I read, I keep up, I know the latest news and theories and entirely appropriate questions raised, then, now and forever ... but for me, personally, I am still left with a feeling of deep appreciation for this monster being found, and dispatched. Killed, captured, whatever.
That he died is more than wholly acceptable to me, and of all the 'Mission Accomplished's that weren't, this one was, is, and forever remains a 'win.'
Losing my beautiful 25 year old niece on 9/11, and fully immersed in that date ever since, I read, I keep up, I know the latest news and theories and entirely appropriate questions raised, then, now and forever ... but for me, personally, I am still left with a feeling of deep appreciation for this monster being found, and dispatched. Killed, captured, whatever.
That he died is more than wholly acceptable to me, and of all the 'Mission Accomplished's that weren't, this one was, is, and forever remains a 'win.'
17
Condolensces to you and the family of your beautiful niece. It must be painful for you to read the myopic view of those who think taking out OBL is a crime compared to the ongoing massive murders perpertrated by OBL Such thinking should have demanded a subpoena served to Adolf or Tojo instead of their attempted take outs. Such thinking should have demanded a quick prosecution of General Stief in his failed attempt to murder Adolf, of which the SS+Gestapo most readily agreed.
Let me see if I get this paper's position right.
So these lawyers are heros? Because their opinions supported a Democratic Administration's actions; i.e., to kill OBL. (I suppose these are the same lawyers who render opinions in support of the Administration's drone attacks in sovereign nations, often killing innocent children in the process.)
And the lawyers from the Bush Administration? Whose opinions supported a similar goal -- doing what needed to be done to hunt down the people who killed over 3000 of our countrymen -- are criminals? Vile criminals, according to many of the Times' readers.
Point of fact. Bush's team helped get the information needed to help Obama's team find and kill bin Laden.
Someone will have to explain the difference here.
(Don't bother. I think I know. The hallmark of this paper and its Party is inconsistency of a degree that I have never seen. Incredible.)
So these lawyers are heros? Because their opinions supported a Democratic Administration's actions; i.e., to kill OBL. (I suppose these are the same lawyers who render opinions in support of the Administration's drone attacks in sovereign nations, often killing innocent children in the process.)
And the lawyers from the Bush Administration? Whose opinions supported a similar goal -- doing what needed to be done to hunt down the people who killed over 3000 of our countrymen -- are criminals? Vile criminals, according to many of the Times' readers.
Point of fact. Bush's team helped get the information needed to help Obama's team find and kill bin Laden.
Someone will have to explain the difference here.
(Don't bother. I think I know. The hallmark of this paper and its Party is inconsistency of a degree that I have never seen. Incredible.)
3
Point of fact. No that talking point doesn't fly
If you need any justification just ask the 3700 some odd families of 9/11 if they wanted Bin Laden dead!
14
It is clear from the deliberations that ethics and the law are not the same thing and in the case of risking innocent lives incompatible. Even so, few Americans are saddened by the death of Bin Laden, which only goes to show that when it comes to the law strictly speaking, you can do anything you want provided you have the authority to execute your scheme.
2
I am not the least bit sorry to see bin Laden go, but This story makes me wonder whether we are still a country governed by the rule of law, or a country PRETENDING to be governed by rule of law. Bending over backwards to justify a certain course of action, behind close doors, without any independent judicial review, it seems to me these lawyers were not so much providing legal guidance as much as they were going through the charade to protect their boss from any legal consequence.
7
I'm surprised these lawyers did not look into the killing of Admiral Yamamoto in 1943 when his plane was intentionally shot down on orders from South Pacific Command.
3
Lawyers and statisticians are able to justify/explain anything they want. Don't forget the Bush lawyers justifying illegal domestic spying, torture and the war.
Because of this, is it any wonder why Assad has fought like his life and that of his family and entire government depend on it? After Saddam, Mubarak, Qaddafi and OBL who were all killed after we decided they were of no use to us, why should anyone trust the US?
Because of this, is it any wonder why Assad has fought like his life and that of his family and entire government depend on it? After Saddam, Mubarak, Qaddafi and OBL who were all killed after we decided they were of no use to us, why should anyone trust the US?
6
These four individuals should be hailed as American heroes.
11
Any American who thinks that OBL did not deserve to die at the hands of a US military operation is the friend of my enemy.
14
A far cry from disastrous George W Bush's "I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned." The same Republican who was in office when the US was attacked. The same Republican oil man who opened the airspace to let his Saudi buddies out of the country.
17
The same Republican who whined: "He (Saddam) threatened my daddy."
If completely true, this account of events basically describes the best of all possible worlds for the United States. We got exactly what we wanted- no capture, a show of dominance, and a lack of a pilgrimage site. If ever there were justification for lawyers to "stretch" the law, this was it. The morality of this situation is at least very rare in actual history. It is not surprising, nor even desirable, in my opinion, to simply stick to formulaic interpretations of international law here. We did what we wanted to do, whether it was the government's version of events or Seymour Hersh's.
And in this one case, that was totally justified. The fact that we tried to avoid as many innocent deaths as possible should count for a lot in the moral calculus surrounding this event. It doesn't necessarily legitimate what we did, but it needs to be acknowledged as a major mark in the America's favor.
Burying Bin Laden at sea was absolutely necessary. Even if it had violated international law, this is the kind of violation that is excusable. Whether invading Pakistan was justifiable is a much more salient question. I fully support the administration's decision to either keep the Pakistanis in the dark, or to tell them at the last possible moment that we intended to conduct a turkey shoot of Bin Laden.
I'm fine with both Hersh's version and the official account of events. The only objection I have is "Zero Dark Thirty"s portrayal of torture as necessary to the process.
And in this one case, that was totally justified. The fact that we tried to avoid as many innocent deaths as possible should count for a lot in the moral calculus surrounding this event. It doesn't necessarily legitimate what we did, but it needs to be acknowledged as a major mark in the America's favor.
Burying Bin Laden at sea was absolutely necessary. Even if it had violated international law, this is the kind of violation that is excusable. Whether invading Pakistan was justifiable is a much more salient question. I fully support the administration's decision to either keep the Pakistanis in the dark, or to tell them at the last possible moment that we intended to conduct a turkey shoot of Bin Laden.
I'm fine with both Hersh's version and the official account of events. The only objection I have is "Zero Dark Thirty"s portrayal of torture as necessary to the process.
14
Then don't watch the very good HBO documentary on the hunt for bin Laden. It will upset and stress you out. We wouldn't want that. Go with the fairy tale.
At the end of the day, if a President wants lawyers to find a way for him/her to do something... they'll find a way. John Woo found a way for us to torture people when it was on the books that waterboarding was torture. They change a few words, call it "enhanced interrogation" and boom! You've got permission. A less violent example is Hillary claiming a private server was allowed. It wasn't. But being a lawyer, she found a way to make it work.
9
Let us see, the lawyers paved the way, otherwise, we would have to have used Paveway?
1
What justice does killing someone really provide, or does it merely satisfy an emotional, primitive need for reprisal?
5
I'm surprised the Republicans haven't tried to sue the Obama Administration over the killing of bin Laden. The killing of the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks was a momentous event for this country, and the Republicans were loath to give Obama and his administration any credit for it. They acted upset and criticized Obama for the way he handled it. Bear in mind that the war in Afghanistan was in response to the attacks bin Laden orchestrated, so lives were sacrificed and billions were spent. It was a big deal.
Now, imagine if a Republican President was the person behind the killing of bin Laden. It's not unreasonable to assume that there would have been a big production made out of it, perhaps similar to Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier unfurling a huge banner that read "Mission Accomplished." In contrast, Obama simply came on the air and made the announcement, and focused credit on the team that executed the assault.
It just infuriates me that the Republicans have to make everything so political. Yes, the Democrats do it too, but not to the same extent that the GOP does. As I pointed out, Obama didn't make a production out of something that was a big event for our nation, while Bush DID make a production out of something didn't even occur, a mission accomplished. God forbid should our nation be attacked by terrorists with a Democratic President in office. Don't expect the GOP to rally around the President like the Dems did Bush after 9/11.
Now, imagine if a Republican President was the person behind the killing of bin Laden. It's not unreasonable to assume that there would have been a big production made out of it, perhaps similar to Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier unfurling a huge banner that read "Mission Accomplished." In contrast, Obama simply came on the air and made the announcement, and focused credit on the team that executed the assault.
It just infuriates me that the Republicans have to make everything so political. Yes, the Democrats do it too, but not to the same extent that the GOP does. As I pointed out, Obama didn't make a production out of something that was a big event for our nation, while Bush DID make a production out of something didn't even occur, a mission accomplished. God forbid should our nation be attacked by terrorists with a Democratic President in office. Don't expect the GOP to rally around the President like the Dems did Bush after 9/11.
8
Is there any concrete proof that BinLadin was actually killed during that raid in Pakistan?
All I recall was that Obama's lawyers advised us that graphic pictures of BinLadin's death would anger the Islamic World.........and then they proceeded to assist Hollywood in producing a great propaganda film depicting exactly the graphic scenes of BinLadin's death that would supposedly anger everyone in the Islamic World.
Burial at Sea...in the middle of the night? yeah, right.
All I recall was that Obama's lawyers advised us that graphic pictures of BinLadin's death would anger the Islamic World.........and then they proceeded to assist Hollywood in producing a great propaganda film depicting exactly the graphic scenes of BinLadin's death that would supposedly anger everyone in the Islamic World.
Burial at Sea...in the middle of the night? yeah, right.
Yeah, you're right. It was a conspiracy. Did you also know that George W. Bush was the real mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks?
Bin Laden captured and brought to court would have enabled us to hear directly from him what his motivations were. As such, we perhaps would have learned that some of what we dismiss as "terror" are actually acts of war; and that these acts of war are designed to remedy or correct an intolerable situation. It seems this is the one thing we want to avoid discussing: Why is all this terror directed against us. Why is the target on our backs? I would submit: it is because we are "there." If we insist on meddling in the region we can only expect more acts of war directed against us. To call it terror suggests these acts are spontaneous, not caused.
4
I don't understand why he was not apprehended, brought to the United States and made to stand trial and be judged by a jurry of his peers.
10
Who are bin Laden's "peers"?
2
"disputed exception to sovereignty for situations in which a government is “unwilling or unable” to suppress a threat to others emanating from its soil."
Wow so a lot of countries have no sovereignty whatsoever. In dispute...
Wow so a lot of countries have no sovereignty whatsoever. In dispute...
1
Sad to see the types of comments like those from Jim in Buffalo and others. Sure, there are no innocent lambs as government actions go, and there never have been. What we can work toward is a government that does its best to be as moral as possible in a world in which there are very few easy, right/wrong decisions that are absolutely above reproach or regret. OBL frequently and publicly declared war on the US and the western world and his organization and others like it hold themselves above any nation's law. Silly comparisons based on a perspective that the world can be oversimplified into a black/white, all or nothing viewpoint don't contribute to helping us hold ourselves accountable to a higher moral ground; they just contribute to inviting chaos to ensue.
1
Are you people insane? To ruminate about how OBL was shot in the head and removed from his safe house and, god forbid - dumped into the deep? Get real, try doing some charity work and help the living.
12
My only thought is very much different to most of the comments here. This article is about whether or not there was a fig leaf to cover over the act. But then there's this: why isn't this type of summary execution a two-way street? For example, for all the Vietnamese who were napalmed, raped or murdered by the US, why not have someone come here and exact vengeance.
How would you like them apples?
How would you like them apples?
5
This article simply reveals the double standard used when an execution is to be made public. Killing OBL was intended to be made public. If the operation had remained covert, legal reasoning could have been confined to the government. The real mystery is why our government has covert operations at all.
3
When this War on Terror started in earnest, after 9/11, a Columbia law profession opined that we would have a hard time figuring out our model--were we at war or were we undertaking a global police action? Trials of enemy combatants during war are unnecessary, but certain rules apply, and prisoners must be released at the formal end of hostilities. Lawbreakers, though, get due process, so they must be arrested, tried, and, above all, convicted. But they can be sentenced to terms that run long after hostilities cease. Choices, choices.
Bright man, that professor, I wish I could remember his name, but I wonder what he thinks about this story.
Bright man, that professor, I wish I could remember his name, but I wonder what he thinks about this story.
1
All this looking for legal justification for what a government does is insincere. The rule throughout history and for all nations, including the USA, is that might makes right. As long as you are the biggest guy in the room with the biggest gun, you can do whatever you want. That's the reason the USA will maintain the strongest military in the world, no matter what the cost. Legal justification is just window dressing.
1
Dang shame that Congress forget to actually "declare war" on somebody...making the whole farcical operation in Afghanistan illegal and unconstitutional after 90 days.....
Oh sorry, I didnt mean to muddy the waters with all that "land of the free/home of the brave/rule of law" nonsense.
Oh sorry, I didnt mean to muddy the waters with all that "land of the free/home of the brave/rule of law" nonsense.
Rationale reminds me of JQ Adams' justification of Andrew Jackson's (unauthorized) raid into Spanish Florida capturing British officers and killing Seminole original peoples. Adams turned Spain's outrage at violation of their territory into a U.S. foreign policy victory by claiming that Spain had an obligation to control the then-termed "Indian" population. By not controlling the Seminoles, he claimed that the error was Spain's, not Jackson's.
And nobody has been able to handle the Florida State Seminoles ever since!
Seriously, though, when you're the world's protector of innocents, you get away with what some would consider ciminal acts, excusing Abbottabad if not Spanish Florida.
Seriously, though, when you're the world's protector of innocents, you get away with what some would consider ciminal acts, excusing Abbottabad if not Spanish Florida.
Lemme guess....you're a lawyer, arent you?
If President Clinton had been willing to risk the uproar of killing civilians when he had the chance to assassinate Osama bin Laden, perhaps 9-11, the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan would never have occurred and all those thousands of lives would have been spared.
11
They would have found another Osama. Iraq and the entire Middle East were going to be obliterated under any excuses. Israel, the US defense industry and oil corporations were not going to sit idly by while the arab nations pretended to use their resources and progress outside of their control
1
So Bush had 10 months with the same evidence and did nothing?
Bush didn't have 9 months of knowing exactly where binLaden was.
Nice try.
Nice try.
These bold and creative interpretations may seem like a good thing when they benefit an American objective, but in the end they suggest an elasticity in the meaning of all international laws which weakens them. The positions America takes creates uncertainty as to what any principle might mean or stand for, and they engender disrespect and distrust of America. The message is that the rules seem straight-forward, but they mean one thing when we interpret them to validate what we do, and they mean something else again when we interpret them to invalidate what you do.
Not good.
I wonder, how would these lawyers feel defending their opinions before an international court of straight-forward, honest judges? How would Cheney's lawyers feel in the same place defending their Guantanamo legal opinions? My guess is uncomfortable.
Not good.
I wonder, how would these lawyers feel defending their opinions before an international court of straight-forward, honest judges? How would Cheney's lawyers feel in the same place defending their Guantanamo legal opinions? My guess is uncomfortable.
28
How pleasant it is that so many of the planet's professionally disgruntled observers live just across our northern border.
2
HAH! Lawyers are trained to lie with a straight face & have no remorse for anything they do.
1
Bin Laden presented a whole slew of bad options.
Going after him necessitated an attack or invasion into a country we were not fighting, but could not trust. But allowing him to remain free would have demonstrated that the US would take no action against those who attack us. It is a bad precedent to give terrorists the idea that no one will come after them.
Trial would give him a platform to amplify Al Qaeda's propaganda. Imprisonment would give more reason to take hostages, or retaliate, or extort.
Sometimes the most pragmatic action is not the most moral action. The lawyers just got the job of laying down cover fire to protect everyone else.
I don't consider Bin Laden a loss. I would have preferred that the moral high road didn't have so many potholes. But I am not going to criticize the lawyers any more than I would criticize the SEALs for taking care of the problem.
Going after him necessitated an attack or invasion into a country we were not fighting, but could not trust. But allowing him to remain free would have demonstrated that the US would take no action against those who attack us. It is a bad precedent to give terrorists the idea that no one will come after them.
Trial would give him a platform to amplify Al Qaeda's propaganda. Imprisonment would give more reason to take hostages, or retaliate, or extort.
Sometimes the most pragmatic action is not the most moral action. The lawyers just got the job of laying down cover fire to protect everyone else.
I don't consider Bin Laden a loss. I would have preferred that the moral high road didn't have so many potholes. But I am not going to criticize the lawyers any more than I would criticize the SEALs for taking care of the problem.
17
This shouldn't have taken four lawyers to figure out. This is more of a testimony to President Obama's leadership style to get various entities onboard with his plan to infiltrate Pakistan and kill Bin Laden.
In November of 2007, then presidential candidate Senator Obama stated that if America had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden and Pakistan would not act that he would do so unilaterally. Which is precisely what President Obama did. Pakistan could not be trusted. Shortly after 911, Pakistan's General Mahmoud Ahmed, the head of their intelligence service ISI, had to soon resign, as it was alleged he had earlier ordered that $100,000 be wired to the 911 leader Mohamed Atta.
America declared war on, Al Qaeda the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. It would follow that all members of Al Qaeda are and remain legitimate targets of war; therefore no individual trial is needed. The only thing left is to consider is efforts to minimize collateral damage to civilians.
The children at Bin Laden's compound were not harmed which cannot be said about the DC school children who were on the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on 911.
In November of 2007, then presidential candidate Senator Obama stated that if America had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden and Pakistan would not act that he would do so unilaterally. Which is precisely what President Obama did. Pakistan could not be trusted. Shortly after 911, Pakistan's General Mahmoud Ahmed, the head of their intelligence service ISI, had to soon resign, as it was alleged he had earlier ordered that $100,000 be wired to the 911 leader Mohamed Atta.
America declared war on, Al Qaeda the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. It would follow that all members of Al Qaeda are and remain legitimate targets of war; therefore no individual trial is needed. The only thing left is to consider is efforts to minimize collateral damage to civilians.
The children at Bin Laden's compound were not harmed which cannot be said about the DC school children who were on the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on 911.
106
On the other hand, all of the first tier Nazis, (among many others) were tried for their crimes after World War 2. Crimes, might I add, that make the events of 9/11 pale into insignificance. By your logic, we should have just shot them all. I cannot find the words to express the magnitude of my gratitude that we did what we did. That was America at its finest. We have come a long way down since then.
1
Two not altogether insignificant points are raised here. First, was there ever a declaration of war? I don't remember this happening. In fact, I think WW2 saw the last, and most recent, declaration. Second, can a nation declare war against non-state actors? This question has been raised numerous times. Many maintain that 9-11 was a criminal act, not an act of war, and should have been treated as such.
Why focus on the odd example where a foreign American military attack on Al Queda (4 years ago) did not kill innocent children when there are literally thousands of examples where a foreign military attack did kill innocent children. Ever hear of the over 1 million killed in Iraq (many innocent children), tens of thousands killed in Afghanistan (many innocent children), and thousands killed in Yemen, Libya and Pakistan (many innocent children). When did Al Queda last attack and kill an innocent child in America? The answer is over 14 years ago, but daily America launches foreign attacks on innocent children in the name of attacking Al Queda.
Hersch's version of events is much more logical.
That doesn't make Hersch's version true, but his reporting is undeniably much more logical. The White House's retractions of critical components of their own narrative, as time passed, also lends credence to Hersch's story.
That doesn't make Hersch's version true, but his reporting is undeniably much more logical. The White House's retractions of critical components of their own narrative, as time passed, also lends credence to Hersch's story.
4
This article is to make up for the magazine piece giving credence to Hersh's investigative report on the killing. Back-tracking is a mistake on the issue. If the New York Times wants to remain a newspaper of record for the near future, it needs to be consistent and honest - even if it has editorial policies and priorities that don't cover all angles. No paper is completely objective, but the editorial stance has become too forceful in manipulating news coverage to support its views. The serious danger to the NYTimes is that an online news platform will fill in the credibility gap that is widening between the Times and its readership, and push it out of the market. That would a huge loss for the country, and I think it is in the Times' interest to do more to prevent it from happening.
9
Does this actually have any relevance to the story?
This is a back story, not back-tracking. This richly detailed report counters the shrill voices who say Obama and his administration had no role in Bin Laden's killing, that the Navy Seals did it all on their own.
Capturing and imprisoning bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and others would have enabled historians to learn their motivations. Killing criminals is not only unnecessary and cruel, it deprives us of an understanding of the darker regions of human nature.
10
In the normal course of events, I would agree. In this case, however, there were a lot of downsides to leaving him alive, not least that Americans and Brits traveling abroad could be subject to kidnap, hijacking, or worse to leverage the release of BL.
I'm very glad it wasn't me that had to make the decision, though.
I'm very glad it wasn't me that had to make the decision, though.
1
Er... We DID capture and imprison Saddam Hussein, Kev. He was interviewed.
And what exactly did we learn about the darker regions of human nature from him?
Nada. He just kept double down on his version of righteous hate, self delusion, and moral relativism.
And what exactly did we learn about the darker regions of human nature from him?
Nada. He just kept double down on his version of righteous hate, self delusion, and moral relativism.
1
The crucial fact for America, which this report continues to blur, is that President Obama sent our troops in for the purpose of killing bin Laden. And the crucial question is, Why?
Why did we choose to kill OBL when bringing him back alive, which the team could easily have done, would have given us an unparalleled wealth of information about terrorist activity and networks, including not just the roots and details of past and future plots, but the governments, officials, and individuals who have been providing him and his associates with aid and comfort?
What did bin Laden know, what would he have said in open court, that was so troubling for our government that it chose to kill him, despite the harms that caused to American intelligence and security, just to keep him from revealing to the American people?
Why did we choose to kill OBL when bringing him back alive, which the team could easily have done, would have given us an unparalleled wealth of information about terrorist activity and networks, including not just the roots and details of past and future plots, but the governments, officials, and individuals who have been providing him and his associates with aid and comfort?
What did bin Laden know, what would he have said in open court, that was so troubling for our government that it chose to kill him, despite the harms that caused to American intelligence and security, just to keep him from revealing to the American people?
10
Quite likely that Hose of Saud was far more supportive of OBL than Americans should know.
OR...
Or he could have just sat there and continued to laugh at our culture of passiveness, knowing good Libs have take "extraordinary rendition" off the table and there wasn't a darn thing we could do to glean any valuable intel from him.
THANKS FOR THAT, by the way!
Or he could have just sat there and continued to laugh at our culture of passiveness, knowing good Libs have take "extraordinary rendition" off the table and there wasn't a darn thing we could do to glean any valuable intel from him.
THANKS FOR THAT, by the way!
What better evidence could you get after the event of before-the-fact reasons than the front page of the New York Times reading "the lawyers drafted five secret memos so that if pressed later, they could prove they were not inventing after-the-fact reasons"!
2
Excellent writing and investigation. Thank you Carlie Savage.
4
If you need to get four of the country's best lawyers to come up with a justification for it, it's probably not legal.
13
When Bin Laden handpicked "officers" deliberately plotted, hijacked and flew planes into our buildings on our territory war was declared. In my mind it was no different to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Thank you Mr. President.
Thank you Mr. President.
14
They got rid of Bin Laden when he was no longer useful as a boogey man. I think the way they did it was wrong and had to be illegal. Think what we could have learned if he had been allowed to speak. Maybe that was part of the problem with him staying alive..I've often wondered. Obviously, I don't really believe they couldn't have found him sooner or that they ever intended for him to have the ability to defend himself under international law.
5
Bin Laden wouldn't have given us any information, nor could we risk the outside chance of him escaping. We had him surrounded once before in Afghanistan and he got away. And during the raid that led to his killing the Navy SEALs lost a chopper. Furthermore, putting bin Laden on trial would have furthered bin Laden's agenda, serving as a rallying cry and recruitment tool for attracting potentially hundreds of thousands of young Muslims to bin Laden's cause. And, of course, that in turn could have cost many innocent Americans, and others, their lives.
We knew enough about bin Laden to know he was responsible for the deaths of many Americans (and not just on 9/11). Eliminating him the way they did was the best thing for our country.
We knew enough about bin Laden to know he was responsible for the deaths of many Americans (and not just on 9/11). Eliminating him the way they did was the best thing for our country.
In matters of international law, a country must consider how its conduct will affect the conduct of other nations. Disregarding international law makes it more likely that others will do the same. Respecting international law, however, is no guarantee that others will follow your example.
7
The suggestions that a trial by jury was warranted are shockingly ignorant. Simply put, the wages of war is death. There is nothing remotely unjust or unfair about that. Regardless of what any naïvely masochistic liberal justices may imagine in their pollyanna fantasies, the U.S. Constitution applies not beyond the borders of the country and was never intended to and never will apply to enemy combatants.
8
The Laws of War as set forth in the Geneva Convention would beg to differ. As would the German and Japanese officers who were hanged or shot by Americans for violating those laws. What your argument boils down to is that Americans can never be the perpetrators of a war crime, because whenever Americans are the perpetrators of a war crime the rules change so that the action is no longer a war crime. How convenient!
Someone wrote earlier that because of terrorism, war acts are justified. But since in our modern world, there will always be someone crazy enough to use lethal weapons in random situations (in schools, just to name one, movie theaters, subway, etc.), for random reasons (mental issue, alcohol or drug abuse, personal revenge, etc.), and killing people for any reason is easily categorized as terrorism, then the reasoning above means that our societies accept to be in a permanent war, forever. If you are happy with that .... I am not.
5
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Obama administration. I remind you of what Karl Rove said when he heard about the bin Laden raid: "Congratulations, President Bush!"
Thanks for the additional confirmation that Rove is a known liar.
7
If there's any confusion, the Bush Administration let bin Laden escape when they had him surrounded at Bora Bora. In contrast, the Obama Administration was able to accomplish the mission, and didn't even feel the need to commandeer an aircraft carrier or an S-3 Viking and stage a major production to announce it. Karl Rove was obviously confused. Kinda like his confusion on the night of the 2012 election insisting that Obama had not won, when clearly he had.
1
Even critics of US cowboy style foreign policy must recognize a fact. America is a legalistic society where executive orders for torture and assassination of foreign nationals must be backed by lawyerly/secret documents. Russia of Vladimir Putin does not play by the same rules.
1
Does anybody think this "legal analysis" was anything but a charade. The laywers where of course pressured to arrive to the "correct" conclusion. It is better for the administration to publicly ignore the law and say that if the stakes are high enough, we do as please (which is what actually happens).
As it is now, this charade does not bring any extra legitimacy to the action. It just erodes the confidence it the impartial process of the law.
As it is now, this charade does not bring any extra legitimacy to the action. It just erodes the confidence it the impartial process of the law.
17
A massive bombing on a friendly ally's territory killing dozens of peaceful citizens is legal. So, what WOULD be illegal?
24
Since when do we have to justify anything? Drone assassinations? Bombardment of hospitals? This is an exercise in futility!
20
I wonder what is happening the the "celestial city" that is supposed to be the US.
The West tried Germany's Nazis at Nuremberg. But since 9/11 the US has been operating Murder International Inc., even killing its own citizens branded as "terrorists" by the Executive Branch.
Obama apparently has Terror Tuesday meetings where the US current hit list is reviewed and presidential orders given for the murder of those deemed "terrorists"
One has to wonder where this killing of people labelled as terrorists will lead. Murder by the state without a trial is still definitely murder.
The West tried Germany's Nazis at Nuremberg. But since 9/11 the US has been operating Murder International Inc., even killing its own citizens branded as "terrorists" by the Executive Branch.
Obama apparently has Terror Tuesday meetings where the US current hit list is reviewed and presidential orders given for the murder of those deemed "terrorists"
One has to wonder where this killing of people labelled as terrorists will lead. Murder by the state without a trial is still definitely murder.
35
MacDonald, America has done some awful things, it's true...but please, let's not equate Hitler's actions against Jews from 1933 until his death with the actions of America. The equating ends after it is acknowledged that Germany and the US have killed "innocents".
The split second that a you move to a comparison of numbers, intent, and purpose, your equation falls totally apart.
The split second that a you move to a comparison of numbers, intent, and purpose, your equation falls totally apart.
Whether you feel bin Laden "deserved it" or not, it was an extrajudicial execution and just another landmark down this nation's slippery slope to a point where we are no better than the countries Washington regularly describes as "barbaric", a "failed state" etc.
Add to that, the fact that our "democratic principles" are now a near-completely transparent fraud, it's easy to see how intellectuals like these lawyers who sacrificed their credibility in service to power by "stretching sparse precedents", are so invaluable to Washington.
Sadly, we have no one in the mass media or political class with the integrity to question any of this.
Add to that, the fact that our "democratic principles" are now a near-completely transparent fraud, it's easy to see how intellectuals like these lawyers who sacrificed their credibility in service to power by "stretching sparse precedents", are so invaluable to Washington.
Sadly, we have no one in the mass media or political class with the integrity to question any of this.
35
Hillary supported the OBL assassination. I bet people who detest extrajudicial execution will vote for Hillary.
3
Yeah, but if the punditry should ever become enlightened and call her on it, Hillary would say something like, "Now I'm against it - I've evolved".
1
Only a nation state can declare war and only on another nation state. The exception to this rule is so-called 'civil war' but even that is technically an insurrection where a group of rebels are trying to overthrow the authority of the national government.
We will never know the true extent to which the Saudi government and rich Saudis supported the hijackers likely led by Bin Laden because the alleged ringleader was never put on trial. How convenient for all those Americans who drive their oversized SUVs and guzzle Saudi oil like there is no tomorrow..
We will never know the true extent to which the Saudi government and rich Saudis supported the hijackers likely led by Bin Laden because the alleged ringleader was never put on trial. How convenient for all those Americans who drive their oversized SUVs and guzzle Saudi oil like there is no tomorrow..
4
The Geneva Convention recognizes rules for, and therefore recognizes the legality of, an "armed conflict not of an international character".
Is there a distinction between the torture sanctioned by the John Yoo memo and the actions justified by the memos of these four attorneys regarding Bin Laden?
My answer is "yes" inasmuch as Bin Laden had accepted responsibility for initiating an act of war which killed thousands of civilians and he was not in prison under our control.
Was part of the reason for seeking these legal opinions an attempt to provide legal safety for the Seal Team members?
I think to some extent that was probably a part of the rational.
Finally, was the legal reasoning sound? I leave that to history, but I cannot regret this action. I know people whose loved ones died at the WTC on 9/11 and it is not revenge that makes me accept this, but a sad recognition that indeed a war had been declared on this country.
My answer is "yes" inasmuch as Bin Laden had accepted responsibility for initiating an act of war which killed thousands of civilians and he was not in prison under our control.
Was part of the reason for seeking these legal opinions an attempt to provide legal safety for the Seal Team members?
I think to some extent that was probably a part of the rational.
Finally, was the legal reasoning sound? I leave that to history, but I cannot regret this action. I know people whose loved ones died at the WTC on 9/11 and it is not revenge that makes me accept this, but a sad recognition that indeed a war had been declared on this country.
10
AliceWren - Distinctions and justifications, are you an attorney for this administration?
No. I am not an attorney. And I have no connection to the Obama administration and never have.
Very racy headline Times. Interesting article all the same. Heres the bottom line ... Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Theres not a wet eye in the house.
5
I read a few of the comments before I quit. I wonder about the mental capacities of some of my countrymen and -women. From an American perspective, I think, OBL deserved to be killed, and while I don't usually prefer to celebrate killing, I'm glad that it was an American service member who put a bullet through his sorry head.
11
This should come as no surprise, that if lawyers had no problem rationally justifying "torture", doing the same for "murder" would be a slam-dunk. "Legal justice" truly has become an oxymoron, and probably always was from its earliest inception.
3
I have absolutely no problem with this and I sincerely hope no one else does either.
14
So the lawyers outlined the justification for killing the enemy? I'm fine with that. As opposed to the previous administration, which used lawyers to justify torture.
9
Glad you can dance on the head of a pin.
2
Very concerning legal conclusions that are out of step with international law. I can see China and Russia using the very same rationale to do what they please. In particular:
"The lawyers decided that a unilateral military incursion would be lawful because of a disputed exception to sovereignty for situations in which a government is “unwilling or unable” to suppress a threat to others emanating from its soil....the United States did not first ask Pakistan, which had helped with or granted consent for other counterterrorism operations."
"The lawyers decided that a unilateral military incursion would be lawful because of a disputed exception to sovereignty for situations in which a government is “unwilling or unable” to suppress a threat to others emanating from its soil....the United States did not first ask Pakistan, which had helped with or granted consent for other counterterrorism operations."
Thank you, Mr. Savage, you have thoroughly explained how the lawyers answered the age-old question, "To kill or not to kill. That is the question." In our contentious, do-nothing Congress, Bin Laden's death was the only option. Nothing else would have worked. Otherwise, we would still be debating.
3
This whole thing is amusing. Lawyers paved the way?? I am not sure what would or could prevent the US from exhibiting the proverbial middle you know what to anyone that questioned what it did. We just do what we want around the world don't we?
1
It is interesting to see comments dividing into a group that says the United States needed no legal authority to kill the man, and another that says the absence of a trial makes the U.S.' actions illegitimate.
While I'm not a practicing lawyer, I have some legal education. I know that it's important to note UBL was not a U.S. citizen, he is not necessarily due protections that the U.S. Constitution guarantees its citizens. I also know that it's important to note Congress' 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda ostensibly places any U.S. actions against Al Qaeda in a "jus in bello," law in wartime, framework, which under normal circumstances would make it easier to square military force with international law.
But, as the article points out, the facts we are dealing with here are entirely novel ones. Al Qaeda is not a nation with geographical limits. And likewise, UBL was not a sovereign of an enemy nation. Those distinctions are distinctions that matter, because the Law of Armed Conflict, which is surprisingly robust normally, becomes muddled when national boundaries no longer delineate friend from foe.
We can fill in the blanks with talking points if we want to, and many of us do, but we are still in new territory. The bottom line is that there are very few court Supreme Court decisions to look to in order to understand what the law is here. The lawyers in the security community have the unenviable, but critical, task of trying to make sense of it.
While I'm not a practicing lawyer, I have some legal education. I know that it's important to note UBL was not a U.S. citizen, he is not necessarily due protections that the U.S. Constitution guarantees its citizens. I also know that it's important to note Congress' 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda ostensibly places any U.S. actions against Al Qaeda in a "jus in bello," law in wartime, framework, which under normal circumstances would make it easier to square military force with international law.
But, as the article points out, the facts we are dealing with here are entirely novel ones. Al Qaeda is not a nation with geographical limits. And likewise, UBL was not a sovereign of an enemy nation. Those distinctions are distinctions that matter, because the Law of Armed Conflict, which is surprisingly robust normally, becomes muddled when national boundaries no longer delineate friend from foe.
We can fill in the blanks with talking points if we want to, and many of us do, but we are still in new territory. The bottom line is that there are very few court Supreme Court decisions to look to in order to understand what the law is here. The lawyers in the security community have the unenviable, but critical, task of trying to make sense of it.
42
For every lawyer one can get a different opinion, usually tailored to the client paying the freight, and in this case the opinions were given to enable not to disable the murder of Bin-Laden without legal impediment. Course they left out common sense and fairness sacrificed on the altar of a tit for a tat. Lest anybody forget there were some innocents murdered as well along with the main prize. But that of course was collateral damage something the U.S. knows a lot about.
The yankee way seems to have hit a few impediments in trying to re-arrange the world to its liking which is a bit ironic considering it caused the mess to being with.
The yankee way seems to have hit a few impediments in trying to re-arrange the world to its liking which is a bit ironic considering it caused the mess to being with.
1
Almost nowhere in the constitution does it talk about protections for "citizens", invariably it restricts government power to protect "persons". At the writing of the original constitution it should be remembered that the vast majority of humans living in the United States (citizen or not) - Blacks, Women, non-property holding white males, and Native Americans - were not considered "persons" but thankfully, through much time and struggle - these humans and others including non-native born humans are considered "persons". Your logic about Al Queda's vagueness and ubiquity - "not a nation with geographical limits" - is not novel, it was applied to the Native American "nation" by the founders who saw them as terrorists and treated them in much the same way that Obama treated Bin Laden.
The difference is whether you believe justice should be achieved in a court of law when possible, or if revenge enacted on the battlefield is acceptable.
Want to be sure I understand this. There are actually people who think Bin Laden should have been arrested and brought to the US for trial? This animal who killed over 3000 on 9/11 and caused people to jump to their death rather than be burned to death? A quick execution is more than he deserved and thanks much to the public servants who paved the way for this, and most of all to the brave SEALS who carried it out.
8
OBL was dead in his compound, the Americans led by Obama took advantage and went after to kill a dead man just look at the circumstances his Doctor told the Pakistani about him being dying or dead then they told the CIA the Dr was discredited and put in a dark jail. never heard from him again
Obama used the killing to win election, deceptive video and grand scheme. As usual !
Obama used the killing to win election, deceptive video and grand scheme. As usual !
1
Sir, you have lost touch with reality. Strongly suggest you seek professional help.
9
The killing of Ben Laden the 911 Bush involvement these are realities that have many diverse views and opinions ye we should all "including you" seek professional help to survive this deceptive corrupt government
1
The following excerpt from the article is chilling:
"One proposal Mr. Obama considered, as previously reported, was to destroy the compound with bombs capable of taking out any tunnels beneath. That would kill dozens of civilians in the neighborhood. But, the officials disclosed, the lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances."
It looks like the lawyers would have deemed any action legal. No wonder US droning has resulted in high civilian casualties; it also explains why there is scant regard for foreign human life in the US high command.
"One proposal Mr. Obama considered, as previously reported, was to destroy the compound with bombs capable of taking out any tunnels beneath. That would kill dozens of civilians in the neighborhood. But, the officials disclosed, the lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances."
It looks like the lawyers would have deemed any action legal. No wonder US droning has resulted in high civilian casualties; it also explains why there is scant regard for foreign human life in the US high command.
9
I suppose if these four didn't find away to make the raid legal, Obama could always have turned John Yoo.
3
Legal permission? Nonsense. Imagine if the lawyers had concluded that an essential element of the plan was illegal. Then what?
This operation was going to happen the way it had been planned -- regardless. The lawyers were brought in to justify it as best they could, supplying a veneer of legality and easing the President's conscience. Too bad he could not have been more honest and said: "I'm going to do this regardless of the law", forgoing the charade that it had been legally vetted beforehand. All the lawyers proved was just how malleable interpretations of legal codes can be when you conveniently bend them to justify your chosen ends.
This operation was going to happen the way it had been planned -- regardless. The lawyers were brought in to justify it as best they could, supplying a veneer of legality and easing the President's conscience. Too bad he could not have been more honest and said: "I'm going to do this regardless of the law", forgoing the charade that it had been legally vetted beforehand. All the lawyers proved was just how malleable interpretations of legal codes can be when you conveniently bend them to justify your chosen ends.
6
In 2001, George W. Bush said he wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive." Was he not prepared with legal backup should he have been successful? It seems that Obama didn't have a new opposite-party idea.
Here's another red herring to make sure the American public does not entertain the credibility of Seymour Hersch's version of Osama Bin Laden's death. After White House and the CIA summarily dismissed Hersch's research and after Hollywood hyped the Washington version in Zero Dark Thirty, you'd think Hersch's version was dead in the water. Hersch had reported in his controversial study of events, published May 2015, that Pakistan quietly turned Bin Laden over to the US, and Navy SEALS assassinated him without a fight. Today's story about lawyers finding reasons to legitimize the assassination seems like a distraction from questions about what actually happened in Abbotabad, in case anyone still wonders.
2
Good for them! Alas, what this story underscores is how woefully restricted our nation's ability to protect itself has become by over-lawyering of national security imperatives.
2
Wasn't he on the FBI's "Most Wanted List?" "Dead or Alive?" If so..then what is all of this? Much ado about nothing? He's dead...good riddance.
3
Susan, your regard for the sanctity of life is rather appalling. Our country, with laws, allows you to live in he freedom you've become accustomed to since, I assume, your birth. A country without laws is not a country. He is dead. And I probably support your "good riddance" posture. However I'd rather have the law allow me to do what we did to Bin Laden than just butcher him because he's "much ado about nothing." Without laws you would be "much ado about nothing" too. If you were killed...good riddance to you too. Without laws you're no better than he was.
China needs to hire these guys to legitimatize their island grabs in the South China Sea.
Seems like a good bunch of lawyers can make anything, from torture to assassination, "legal".
Seems like a good bunch of lawyers can make anything, from torture to assassination, "legal".
3
Lawyers are the real heroes!
Perhaps the U.S. captured bin Laden because he was an enormous intel resource into the inner workings of al-Qaeda, and the real "operation" was a media operation, to convince the world that the U.S. killed him.
I was wondering if this is the real Osama Bin Laden in photo No 2. If I remember correctly, Bin Laden was left handed. Why is he using his right hand to operate the remote control. What do you think?
Not everyone's handedness carries over to every task. Lots of people who write with their left hand are termed "left handed" despite favoring their right hand for any number of tasks, whether using a remote, throwing, etc.
Here's what I think: This is how conspiracy theories hatch. An utterly meaningless observation elevated to a mantle of importance. Maybe his left hand was incapacitated. Maybe he was holding a banana in his left hand under his blanket. Maybe he had a paper cut on his left thumb. Or maybe, like a lot of us, he just does some things with his non-dominant hand.
3
Really?
Does anyone seriously think that once any branch of the armed forces of this country got a hold of Osama bin Laden they would do anything but kill him? After what he caused our country? Not just the twin towers but the bombings to U.S. military installations since the '90s? Other than the intrigue, is this really news?
Does anyone seriously think that once any branch of the armed forces of this country got a hold of Osama bin Laden they would do anything but kill him? After what he caused our country? Not just the twin towers but the bombings to U.S. military installations since the '90s? Other than the intrigue, is this really news?
1
If they were ordered to capture him rather than kill him? Absolutely. The type of personnel who would be sent on that mission aren't the people who would purposely disobey direct orders, even for someone as infamous as Bin Laden. I'm honestly surprised that the order wasn't to capture him, honestly. It would have been a better PR victory to capture him and have him executed on US soil.
If you need to find and compel a team of brilliant, politically homogeneous lawyers to work strenuously over a period of weeks researching and drafting legal opinions regarding the legality of an activity before the fact, than what you're doing isn't legal.
And the rest of the world understood anyway. Whatever these lawyers' legal findings were, the international community all heard the same thing. America said, "it was bin Laden; fuggedaboutit." And they did.
And the rest of the world understood anyway. Whatever these lawyers' legal findings were, the international community all heard the same thing. America said, "it was bin Laden; fuggedaboutit." And they did.
"If you need to find and compel a team of brilliant, politically homogeneous lawyers to work strenuously over a period of weeks researching and drafting legal opinions regarding the legality of an activity before the fact, than what you're doing isn't legal."
As a lawyer, I can tell you that this statement is simply incorrect. What you are describing happens all the time -- literally, all the time -- in the practice of law, both in the public and private sectors. In a nutshell, it is called due diligence, and government and businesses do it constantly before embarking on any sort of large or important action.
I should add that my comment is not directed in any way toward the substance of the underlying article and what these government attorneys (or policymakers) did or did not do (or should have done). I am neither endorsing nor condemning any of their actions. I am simply correcting the apparent misconception that a rigorous, advance vetting of legal issues by no means indicates that an actor is up to no good. Indeed, in a great many (if not most) cases -- it usually indicates a desire to understand the contours of the law so that the actor does not run afoul of it.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that this statement is simply incorrect. What you are describing happens all the time -- literally, all the time -- in the practice of law, both in the public and private sectors. In a nutshell, it is called due diligence, and government and businesses do it constantly before embarking on any sort of large or important action.
I should add that my comment is not directed in any way toward the substance of the underlying article and what these government attorneys (or policymakers) did or did not do (or should have done). I am neither endorsing nor condemning any of their actions. I am simply correcting the apparent misconception that a rigorous, advance vetting of legal issues by no means indicates that an actor is up to no good. Indeed, in a great many (if not most) cases -- it usually indicates a desire to understand the contours of the law so that the actor does not run afoul of it.
1
Weren't a lot of establishment journalists laughing at that article by Seymour Hersh that said Pakistan already knew before the raid that Osama bin Laden was in Abbotabad? And that the raid was specifically intended to kill him?
Now the New York Times nonchalantly says in passing that "the administration feared that the Pakistani intelligence service might have sanctioned Bin Laden’s presence." And the SEAL team was instructed to kill him in every circumstance unless he was both naked and surrendering. This Times article obviously doesn't corroborate everything that Hersh wrote about the raid, but it does back up a couple of the major points of his piece, which brought Hersh a lot of heat from people who don't give the same scrutiny to what the government says.
Now the New York Times nonchalantly says in passing that "the administration feared that the Pakistani intelligence service might have sanctioned Bin Laden’s presence." And the SEAL team was instructed to kill him in every circumstance unless he was both naked and surrendering. This Times article obviously doesn't corroborate everything that Hersh wrote about the raid, but it does back up a couple of the major points of his piece, which brought Hersh a lot of heat from people who don't give the same scrutiny to what the government says.
Bin Laden was a terrorist and he planned the killing of thousands of innocent people, but the MO used by the U.S. to capture this man is a violation of international law. Capturing this man, gave the White House lawyers, with the approval of the president, the official license to violate the sovereignty of a nation not a war with the U.S, Pakistan.
In 1989, we removed Manuel Noriega from his country, Panama through an unlawful invasion of another sovereign nation. In 1990, we invaded Grenada in the Caribbean, yet another violation of international law. In 1973, Chile's Allende, a president elected by popular vote, was also removed from power, thanks to the great works of C.I.A. operatives.
Since the NYT's article is about Bin Laden, I won't continue to list countries whose sovereignty has been flagrantly violated by the U.S. When will learn to respect the sovereignty of nations?
In 1989, we removed Manuel Noriega from his country, Panama through an unlawful invasion of another sovereign nation. In 1990, we invaded Grenada in the Caribbean, yet another violation of international law. In 1973, Chile's Allende, a president elected by popular vote, was also removed from power, thanks to the great works of C.I.A. operatives.
Since the NYT's article is about Bin Laden, I won't continue to list countries whose sovereignty has been flagrantly violated by the U.S. When will learn to respect the sovereignty of nations?
2
This isn't at the same level as Noriega - although nominally our ally, Pakistan has been known for years to contribute funds and arms to terrorist groups. It's not out of the question that Bin Laden's presence was officially tolerated, and that any attempt to inform their government of the raid would have resulted in his being told, and moving somewhere else. Further, the aim of the raid wasn't to topple or destabilize Pakistan's government, unlike the CIA operations you cite.
Are we acting out of justice or revenge when we assassinate someone? Are they more dangerous dead or alive?
In this particular circumstance, how much like them are we willing to be? I don't think involving lawyers will get to the bottom of that question.
In this particular circumstance, how much like them are we willing to be? I don't think involving lawyers will get to the bottom of that question.
2
We need a legal opinion to kill a sworn enemy of ours? A man who vowed to kill as many US citizens as possible. A man who planned and set in motion the massacre of 3,000 of our countryman all whom were unarmed civilians going to work. A man who engineered attacks on US military property, ships and barracks.....and we need to a legal opinion to strike back at him? No way. Absurdity in all respects. So let me guess, Admiral Nimitz committed a crime when he authorized the direct assassination of Admiral Yamamoto (the architect of Pearl Harbor) by navy fighter plane? Keep the lawyers out of it. Declare war on the United States and be prepared for a military response and reprisal.
10
This merely diminishes the standing of Federal law which I already consider devious and self-serving, not law at all. All the Federal decisions favor themselves. Just like the Mafia "Consigliere" or family lawyer finding ways around established law.
4
Legal issues justifying OBL's killing? He just needed killin'.
12
Law is about process, and the process used here is the same one the Bush administration used to justify torture. First decide the outcome and then justify this outcome legally. Of course, this is backwards from the way the legal process is supposed to proceed. The better and more honest approach for Bin Laden would have been to simply say that the interests of the United States in hunting him down trump any relevant international and even domestic law because that's really what happened.
5
And the interest of the US should ALWAYS trump ALL other interests; and anyone who seek to undermine that existential truism is a traitor who should be executed. Self preservation is rule number 1. Absent that, law is just meaningless concepts.
Geez. Tell me again why elections matter, why don't you.
I did not vote for two more terms of Bush/Cheney and their slimy lawyers, but that's pretty much what I got.
And if Hillary wins, well...keep on keep on truckin'...
Country of laws, are we? Maybe Shakespeare had it right ("...first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."). 'Cause they can justify ANYTHING...
Osama Bin Laden was a monster we created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. But we never do learn that these are not tame dogs we can habituate to the leash.
I did not vote for two more terms of Bush/Cheney and their slimy lawyers, but that's pretty much what I got.
And if Hillary wins, well...keep on keep on truckin'...
Country of laws, are we? Maybe Shakespeare had it right ("...first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."). 'Cause they can justify ANYTHING...
Osama Bin Laden was a monster we created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. But we never do learn that these are not tame dogs we can habituate to the leash.
13
The idea that Osama bin Laden might be captured was never on the agenda. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
The the jobs of the 4 lawyers was, from the beginning, not to nuance the law, but to provide cover for the assassination. At least this administration decided ahead of time to make sure all the legal ducks were lined up, then proceeded with the mission. And to be fair, there evidently was a scenario which could have spared bin Laden's life: if he was naked, alone and with his hands up.
Unlike the ex post facto torture memos by John Yoo and others to dodge the obvious disregard to national and international law that had been ongoing for months after 9/11 and renewed years later.
The the jobs of the 4 lawyers was, from the beginning, not to nuance the law, but to provide cover for the assassination. At least this administration decided ahead of time to make sure all the legal ducks were lined up, then proceeded with the mission. And to be fair, there evidently was a scenario which could have spared bin Laden's life: if he was naked, alone and with his hands up.
Unlike the ex post facto torture memos by John Yoo and others to dodge the obvious disregard to national and international law that had been ongoing for months after 9/11 and renewed years later.
3
Do any of the critics notice that Al Qaeda never claimed that Bin Laden's death was unlawful?
What a shame that Al Qaeda did not go through the formalities of issuing military uniforms and ranks, instead of just murdering thousands of innocents all over the world--for some, it appears that killing General Bin Laden would be perfectly ok, but killing Mass Murderer Bin Laden was not.
Politically correct guilt must be a heavy weight to carry.
What a shame that Al Qaeda did not go through the formalities of issuing military uniforms and ranks, instead of just murdering thousands of innocents all over the world--for some, it appears that killing General Bin Laden would be perfectly ok, but killing Mass Murderer Bin Laden was not.
Politically correct guilt must be a heavy weight to carry.
5
I am reminded of To Kill a Mockingbird, in which Atticus Finch, the lone defender of law and order in the face of an angry mob, stands aside with the Sheriff after Boo Radley's stabbing of Bob Ewell. "It wouldn't be right [to put Boo Radley on trial, even if everyone in town was grateful]" the sheriff says, "Bob Ewell fell on his knife." Atticus goes along with the lie, because, ultimately, it was the moral thing to do.
Few will lose sleep over the legality of the Bin Laden raid because of a) its success and b) the unquestionable guilt of Bin Laden in furthering terror and mass murder. At least the rule of law and religious tradition were considered by the White House. We've had some cowboy administrations that would question the patriotism of anyone who dare inquire about legality. If Pakistani feathers were ruffled, they were handled diplomatically through back channels. If Seal Team 6 had been captured by Pakistani security forces and a stink made at the UN, then the legality of the raid might have been looked at differently. Think of Gary Powers being shot down over the USSR.
Lawyers must always consider whether they cross the line from advocacy to providing cover for illegal activities. Ethics is a required subject in law school, and for annual continuing education. Would it be illegal to advise Atticus Finch and the Sheriff to stay silent on Boo Radley's stabbing of Bob Ewell? Would it be the right thing to do?
Few will lose sleep over the legality of the Bin Laden raid because of a) its success and b) the unquestionable guilt of Bin Laden in furthering terror and mass murder. At least the rule of law and religious tradition were considered by the White House. We've had some cowboy administrations that would question the patriotism of anyone who dare inquire about legality. If Pakistani feathers were ruffled, they were handled diplomatically through back channels. If Seal Team 6 had been captured by Pakistani security forces and a stink made at the UN, then the legality of the raid might have been looked at differently. Think of Gary Powers being shot down over the USSR.
Lawyers must always consider whether they cross the line from advocacy to providing cover for illegal activities. Ethics is a required subject in law school, and for annual continuing education. Would it be illegal to advise Atticus Finch and the Sheriff to stay silent on Boo Radley's stabbing of Bob Ewell? Would it be the right thing to do?
11
This story is a lot more than a team of skilled government lawyers getting their due. It is about strategy, wits, patriotism, and imagination. It shows us how we can manage all of this and respect religious traditions. All in all, a shining example of what great teams can accomplish.
7
Laws never stopped a U.S. government from murdering people it wanted murdered. It is foolish to think they would stop them now, or at any time in the future. This whole thing is a sham and an insult to thinking people who know their history.
8
Please do not address thinking people unless you are one.
Are you kidding me? You need lawyers to help you decide to kill an enemy in a war?
This is EXACTLY the type of muddled legalistic and moralistic thinking that caused some of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 to have remained at large even after they came under suspicion that they were learning to fly planes in US flight schools in order to engage in terrorism.
(Bill Clinton still is not wearing that, though he was around for 8 years including during the bombing of the World Trade Center. The fundamentalist left blames Bush who started 7 months before).
This country is run by lawyers, to its detriment, and it is one reason why we have the problems we have. And if we succeed, it's despite lawyers.
Go Donald, go Bernie, go Carly, go Ben! Go anyone not a lawyer!
This is EXACTLY the type of muddled legalistic and moralistic thinking that caused some of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 to have remained at large even after they came under suspicion that they were learning to fly planes in US flight schools in order to engage in terrorism.
(Bill Clinton still is not wearing that, though he was around for 8 years including during the bombing of the World Trade Center. The fundamentalist left blames Bush who started 7 months before).
This country is run by lawyers, to its detriment, and it is one reason why we have the problems we have. And if we succeed, it's despite lawyers.
Go Donald, go Bernie, go Carly, go Ben! Go anyone not a lawyer!
7
AMEN BROTHER! I'm a lawyer and I know this whole exercise was absurd nonsense. Some lawyers understand that we (and our legal system) are the problem, not the answer.
What war? Are we at war with Pakistan and I missed it in the paper?
what has this article accomplished other than put these attorneys at risk by identifying them?
18
So it is not just Dick Cheney who relies on creative lawyers interpreting international laws to further extreme US foreign policy objectives.
It would be interesting to ask these same lawyers to analyze a hypothetical situation where a foreign nation conducts a similar operation for similar purposes on American soil.
It would be interesting to ask these same lawyers to analyze a hypothetical situation where a foreign nation conducts a similar operation for similar purposes on American soil.
19
I'm a lawyer for 25 years and find it frightening this ridiculous analysis was ever conducted. Post 9/11, we would have been entirely justified in nuking Mecca, Bagdad and Tehran. Killing OBL? That's a gimme in terms of justification; which is so self-evident its nearly comical to suggest otherwise. International law is meaningless nonsense. There is no such thing. Any avowed enemy of the U.S. can and should be eliminated - any time, any place, by any means necessary - end of discussion.
1
Well, we all saw the movie, right? What if he was really on his knees begging for his life? Yes, sure, monster, murderer, all of that. I still think it would be better if we had dragged his butt out of his "compound" and then ten thousand or so miles back to a Federal Court House in New York City.
We had the moral authority to do that.
The unfortunate thing we will never know is, who helped him, who was connected to the Bin Laden family, who let the guard down. All those questions, and many more, were conveniently erased by his summary execution.
We had the moral authority to do that.
The unfortunate thing we will never know is, who helped him, who was connected to the Bin Laden family, who let the guard down. All those questions, and many more, were conveniently erased by his summary execution.
9
The legal justification for drone killings is no doubt on file somewhere. The moral one, not so much.
No. We would not want him alive in our custody. Dead is far better.
Yes ... but it felt so GOOD.
1
I wish America had governments that don't lie. Anybody with a little sense could figure out that the Obama's stated goal, after the raid, of either capturing bin Laden alive if he could be taken alive or killing him if not was a lie. There was no plan beyond killing him. This article confirms that.
Whether killing bin Laden, no matter how he responded to the invasion, was good or bad, I won't judge.
I will however judge this administration harshly for not worrying as much about the deaths of the innocent victims of drone attacks as it worried about the death of bin Laden. What is the legal or moral defense of those deaths?
Whether killing bin Laden, no matter how he responded to the invasion, was good or bad, I won't judge.
I will however judge this administration harshly for not worrying as much about the deaths of the innocent victims of drone attacks as it worried about the death of bin Laden. What is the legal or moral defense of those deaths?
7
While I applaud the US for engaging in such legal diligence, I note that the 9/11 attackers had no qualms about breaking all manner of laws. It was an act of war; we got their commander fair and square.
8
Obama "explicitly ordered a kill mission." Not unexpected, given his record of drone assassinations. POTUS as war criminal, something no American should be proud of. The rationales put forth about the murder are consistent with the militarization of US diplomacy. Savage is to be congratulated on penetrating the extreme secrecy of policy at the highest level of USG.
25
The drone killings are one thing, getting Osama another. There was no question as to his responsibility for 9-11. Any president of any party who failed to pursue this same end would have been culpable.
War criminal? Drone assassinations? Let's see if your drama matches the facts. President Obama is attacking legitimate targets of war, as authorized by Congress. While civilian casualties are indeed deplorable, they are unfortunately part of war. America didn't hold individual trials for German or Japanese soldiers prior to attacking them, why then would Al Qaeda combatants be treated any differently? President Obama is not a war criminal, you confuse him with the real war criminal, George W. Bush, the man who illegally authorized torture. President Obama stopped torture on day one.
I would suggest reading Seymour Hersh's version in the London Review, as well as others, and to consider many different perspectives of this "incident".
10
Legalities aside, killing this particular enemy leader was a strategic imperative.
Had Osama bin Laden been taken alive then transported to an American prison his far-flung organization would have gone berserk. It would have started a kidnapping campaign targeting Americans and other Western Europeans worldwide to use as barter for his exchange; dozens, scores, even hundreds of American men, women and children held hostage to barter for his release.
President Obama's coup de main would have shriveled into a Jimmy Carter American hostage nightmare.
Had Osama bin Laden been taken alive then transported to an American prison his far-flung organization would have gone berserk. It would have started a kidnapping campaign targeting Americans and other Western Europeans worldwide to use as barter for his exchange; dozens, scores, even hundreds of American men, women and children held hostage to barter for his release.
President Obama's coup de main would have shriveled into a Jimmy Carter American hostage nightmare.
57
But hasn't that happened, despite his death? Isn't the rise of Isis, the rash of suicide bombings, beheading and kidnappings, and the resurgence of the Taliban at least in part an act of retribution for the US killing of Bin Laden? I agree with you, and I support the government's action..but our decision to use lethal force is not without consequence.
Your logic is flawed. By killing him - just like we kill scores of other Muslims - we open the door to a campaign to kill Americans and other Western Europeans worldwide in revenge for his death. Dozens, scores, even hundreds of American men, women, and children killed in revenge for his death.
Get it?
Get it?
I've read several of these posts/responses. While I am proud that so many of my fellow citizens carefully and articulately weigh the elements of law, both international and domestic, I agree with Mr Singer. As a captive Bin Laden would have been a giant problem. As far as the careful planning--both legal and strategic--goes; it is impressive that the operation was so well thought out.
Obama clearly does not wish to be a war time President, but I suspect if he had organized the 2003 invasion of Iraq he would have thought about follow-up to the initial invasion.
Obama clearly does not wish to be a war time President, but I suspect if he had organized the 2003 invasion of Iraq he would have thought about follow-up to the initial invasion.
It is too bad that we preach justice, claim that we try people before convicting them and tell the world we behave morally, and then go in and essentially assassinate a major leader even when he did not apparently present a direct threat. He, like the other Americans we target without trial, was entitled to a hearing. being captured even at the risk of American lives, and punished and sentenced in accord with the Geneva conventions. When radicals say we brought 9/11 on ourselves, this provides another piece of ammunition that we don't talk what we talk. Yes, our enemies don't do that either, but they don't claim to.
6
This whole account is sickening, as it ends with the photo of our blood-thirsty national leaders raptly watching this execution-without-benefit-of-trial. And two of the lawyers who "justified" this murder visit their churches just before. To ask forgiveness of the Prince of Peace in advance? In this adventure our leaders were like mindless, amoral children. And they were cheered for their crime by a mindless, mostly-"Christian" public.
14
And how do you respond to family, friends and loved ones of the almost 3,000 innocent individuals, mostly U.S. citizens, who were killed on September 11, 2001? Was that sickening? They were innocent, going about their daily lives, and were "executed without benefit of trial" by OBL, who openly conceded his guilt and mastermind role in their deaths.
Christianity recognizes a "just war." This was just. OBL has met his maker.
Christianity recognizes a "just war." This was just. OBL has met his maker.
1
Christianity also recognizes that your enemy's bad behavior doesn't justify your own. Of course that are a lot of people in this country who claim to be Christian, without the slightest notion of what the word means.
As for the legality of killing bin Laden, the final legal decision was correct: A Washington lawyer told them, “If he is naked with his hands up, you’re not going to engage him.” In any other scenario, killing bin Laden was justified because of the threat that bin Laden might detonate a suicide bomb.
As for the legality of entering Pakistan without permission, such entry was justified in light of Pakistan's repeated prior history of allowing bin Laden to avoid capture.
As for the legality of entering Pakistan without permission, such entry was justified in light of Pakistan's repeated prior history of allowing bin Laden to avoid capture.
9
Really? They had to consult lawyers before taking out the terrorist who caused the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on September 11?
14
This is the most ridiculous story. Oh, yes, the lawyers are the real heroes here. Nothing would've happened without them. Sure.
In the same vein that Nancy Reagan had to consult astrologers before telling Ronnie whom to bomb next. "Behind every great man....," etc.
Before sending troops into a more-or-less friendly country without that country's assent, yes.
I don't have a problem with this action. However, would everyone be as accepting of this action if Bush/Cheney did it?
How about the killing of US citizens by drone nowhere near the battlefield? Obama did it! what would you say if Bush/Cheney did it?
How about the killing of US citizens by drone nowhere near the battlefield? Obama did it! what would you say if Bush/Cheney did it?
11
That is why the left has such a great hold on what correct or not.
I do have a problem with this action and yes if Bush/Cheney did it there would be a markedly different reaction.
1
The 2008 debate words of McCain still ring out loud and clear: "I know where to find Bin Laden. I know where he is, and when I'm president I'll get him."
Well, if he really knew then his first obligation was to get on the phone to President Obama on January 21st and let him know where to send the troops. But he didn't do that, did he?
Well, if he really knew then his first obligation was to get on the phone to President Obama on January 21st and let him know where to send the troops. But he didn't do that, did he?
13
Gee, he must have lied.
Nonsense Propaganda, In 2007 a far more trustworthy source by international standards(Benazir Bhutto) told interviewer David Frost that OBL had died of health problems more than a decade ago.
What a load of horse manure...
What a load of horse manure...
2
Who are you going to believe: the facts or your "far more trustworthy source"?
It would have been quite interesting if the Navy Seals showed up in Abbottabad with a signed search warrant banging on Osama bin Laden's door. "Osama, before we terminate you, please sign this form to acknowledge the receipt of this warrant..."
10
The Times is asking us to praise Obama for his lack of transparency fin assassinating a bad guy whose death made us not one bit safer. I'm glad OBL is dead but let's drop the pretense that his killing did anything other than give Obama a "mission accomplished" moment, similar to Bush's on that aircraft carrier. Will the Times be so quick to praise the next president who takes out an enemy in this manner? Who gets to make the decision as to when a killing is illegal and unjustified?
20
Are you suggesting that the operation to take out OBL was illegal and unjustified? Try telling that to the family, friends and loved ones of the almost 3,000 killed by OBL on September 11, 2001. This nation owed it to them and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on that horrific day to pay retribution to the man guilty for these crimes.
Mission accomplished.
Mission accomplished.
1
Perhaps we should have asked the families of the 3000 killed in NYC to vote on whether it was justified.
"The officials described the secret legal deliberations and memos for a forthcoming book on national security legal policy under Mr. Obama. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were confidential."
Why anonymity for officials who reveal the secret legal deliberations, secret memos, and confidential talks? Open their openness.
Why anonymity for officials who reveal the secret legal deliberations, secret memos, and confidential talks? Open their openness.
1
The entire article made me uneasy, with concern for those whose identities were revealed and disdain for the anonymous blabbers. I never felt the need to know details of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but did feel concern for those affected by the fake vaccination scheme to collect DNA to confirm his location.
"A Propaganda fight?" That's all it would've cost you if you bombed that place and killed a bunch of innocent people?
That's disgusting.
That's disgusting.
6
I find it amusing that the US thought it necessary to legally justify the assassination of Bin Laden. Certainly, facts as they were later presented (i.e., no WMDs and no "yellow cake"), did not make it legal for the Bush-Cheney Axis to invade Iraq (and BTW, prepare for the creation ISIS).
2
Smart move by the administration. The Republican Party is always looking to score political points against the White House. Doubtless they would consider a lawsuit.
6
Did the ABA pay the NYTimes for this article?
No, four lawyers did not pave the way for Obama's capture and killing. Four lawyers found legal justification for the operation. But that's what lawyers are everywhere hired for--to find reasonably defensible justifications for actions of questionable legality.
The Administration was going to do what it wanted to do, lawyers or not. It simply wanted legal cover for its actions because everyone is vested in the myth that there is such a thing as law in warfare. There isn't. Warfare is the substitution of law and diplomacy with the force of arms.
Nice try, NYT, but any decently competent lawyer could scrape together reasonable legal justification for pretty much anything an Administration wanted to do, particularly in the arena of international relations. In this case it was easy. Nobody cared a whit what the law said. They just wanted bin Laden dead. And now he is. And not because of the lawyers.
No, four lawyers did not pave the way for Obama's capture and killing. Four lawyers found legal justification for the operation. But that's what lawyers are everywhere hired for--to find reasonably defensible justifications for actions of questionable legality.
The Administration was going to do what it wanted to do, lawyers or not. It simply wanted legal cover for its actions because everyone is vested in the myth that there is such a thing as law in warfare. There isn't. Warfare is the substitution of law and diplomacy with the force of arms.
Nice try, NYT, but any decently competent lawyer could scrape together reasonable legal justification for pretty much anything an Administration wanted to do, particularly in the arena of international relations. In this case it was easy. Nobody cared a whit what the law said. They just wanted bin Laden dead. And now he is. And not because of the lawyers.
98
Given our political discord, need to say I think you meant "Osama's capture and killing".
THANK YOU. As if any legal analysis would have put the brakes on that raid... It's ridiculous to even suggest! It just so happened that "international law" (such as it is) has so many vague and contradictory principles that one can justify almost anything. Countries are going to do what they're going to do regardless of finger-wagging. See, Putin. See, Iran. See, N. Korea. See, China. See, Assad. See, Israel. See, Palestine. Heck, see, the U.S if you prefer! The only limiting principles are a country's capabilities and its good/bad nature. In the end, the only thing international law REALLY has to say is "smoke 'em if you got 'em." And we "got 'em."
OBL should have answered for his crimes. He should have been put on trial, convicted and executed. That would have been the proper message to send to our enemies.
11
Bin Laden committed an act of war when he directed the slaughter in NYC, Washington DC, and Shanksville. His actions were as deplorable as the Japanese flyers at Pearl Harbor. Presumably, President Truman didn't seek counsel when he justifiably unleashed the atomic weapons on Japan. Unfortunately, the divisive nature in Congress today requires "PMA" insurance lest an action fail and the blame game begins.
Only BinLaden's supporters would have cared about his death. Considering the number of nations that lost citizens in the WTC and elsewhere on 9/11, I cannot imagine any of those countries lost sleep over BinLaden's death, or the attempt if it had been unsuccessful.
Only BinLaden's supporters would have cared about his death. Considering the number of nations that lost citizens in the WTC and elsewhere on 9/11, I cannot imagine any of those countries lost sleep over BinLaden's death, or the attempt if it had been unsuccessful.
6
My closest friend in NYC lost his oldest son when the North Tower went down.
I would only have done one thing different - his body should have been smeared with hog lard before deep sixing it.
I would only have done one thing different - his body should have been smeared with hog lard before deep sixing it.
"Presumably, President Truman didn't seek counsel when he justifiably unleashed the atomic weapons on Japan."
Why would you presume such a thing? Of course Truman sought counsel — from Gen. George Marshall, from Sec. of State James Byrnes, Secs. of the Army and Navy, scientific advisors Vannevar Bush, Karl T. Compton, and James B. Conant and Manhattan Project Director Leslie Groves among others. Truman then made his decision, in my view the correct one, to drop the Atomic bombs and end the war immediately before more American soldiers had to be sent to their deaths.
Presidents have to weigh conflicting advice (think of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis) and then make these momentous decisions. That is the job of a president, and it fell to Obama to make the decision, once again the correct one in my opinion, to kill Osama bin Laden.
Why would you presume such a thing? Of course Truman sought counsel — from Gen. George Marshall, from Sec. of State James Byrnes, Secs. of the Army and Navy, scientific advisors Vannevar Bush, Karl T. Compton, and James B. Conant and Manhattan Project Director Leslie Groves among others. Truman then made his decision, in my view the correct one, to drop the Atomic bombs and end the war immediately before more American soldiers had to be sent to their deaths.
Presidents have to weigh conflicting advice (think of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis) and then make these momentous decisions. That is the job of a president, and it fell to Obama to make the decision, once again the correct one in my opinion, to kill Osama bin Laden.
1
"One proposal Mr. Obama considered, as previously reported, was to destroy the compound with bombs capable of taking out any tunnels beneath. That would kill dozens of civilians in the neighborhood. But, the officials disclosed, the lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances."
Of course they found it legal; that's why Obama chose them. He didn't trust his own AG to approve a hit on the man that the FBI didn't have sufficient evidence to charge for the 911 attacks. But that is to be expected from an administration that bombs a hospital to get one bogie-man. John Yoo must be pleased he has company in legalized murder.
Of course they found it legal; that's why Obama chose them. He didn't trust his own AG to approve a hit on the man that the FBI didn't have sufficient evidence to charge for the 911 attacks. But that is to be expected from an administration that bombs a hospital to get one bogie-man. John Yoo must be pleased he has company in legalized murder.
9
"Stretching sparse precedents" says it all. Sophisticated legal writing analyzes precedent exhaustively, weighing how prior cases were decided and parsing their language for guidance in the case under review. The essence of legal reasoning is extrapolation from the facts and legal holdings of past cases to determine what a court is likely to decide in the case at hand. When precedent is "sparse" legal reasoning goes out the window and even the most sophisticated lawyers become high school debaters, manipulating law and facts to make an argument for the affirmative or the negative depending on which side they are on.
13
A true, but meaningless statement. If precedent is sparse, and statutes are vague (or non-existent), everything boils down to a policy argument. When it comes to policy arguments, unlike strict legal analysis, the starting point must be based in the realities of a situation, not just legal theory. Once located, Bin Laden simply could NOT be allowed to escape. Kill or capture were the only acceptable options and in the absence of unambiguous and applicable law to the contrary, the policy argument moves forward from there. Are there potential counter-arguments? Of course! But balanced against the realities of what the citizens of the United States (the ONLY people to whom the U.S. government owes any incontrovertible duty) had been effectively demanding since 9/11, the theoretical counter-arguments might as well have been trying to talk the moon out of its orbit. In essence, if Pakistan's counter-arguments (no matter how brilliant or strenuous) about its sovereignty required us to ask permission to enter the country despite the very real risk that Pakistan ITSELF would enable Bin Laden's escape through incompetence or duplicity... so much the worse for Pakistan. This is, of course, precisely the argument the Pakistani government asserted directly after the raid and it fell on predictably (and UNDERSTANDABLY) deaf ears over here. They tried to use the ambiguity of "international law" to harbor our worst enemy at the time. We used the same ambiguity to kill him.
1
It's amusing to imagine Bin Laden's body at the bottom of the ocean, and his soul at the bottom of Hell. The antipodes, indeed. He and Adolph and Josef have lots to talk about. Sin in haste, repent at leisure.
9
Hell? How can you be so sure? Someone recently said, 'who am I to judge'.
As far as I'm concerned, the powers that be in Pakistan should have gone with Bin Laden to his demise. They knew he was there, and sheltered him. Pakistan was and is a problem.
9
If the Government hires the right lawyers they can always find legal justification for what they want to do.
24
Yes. Bush had his torture is ok lawyers, and Obama had his assassinating bin Laden is ok lawyers. No doubt Obama also has his inadvertently killing innocents with drones is ok lawyers.
But not even the "right" lawyers. Any high level lawyer on the government's payroll will provide the legal justification for the action that the administration desires to undertake. That's their job. That's what lawyers are paid to do. In this case, the federal government, in general, and Obama, in particular, are the client and the president needed his legal opinions in his desk drawer in the event his decision proves unwise.
That is precisely the objective of legal opinions - to protect the client.
That is precisely the objective of legal opinions - to protect the client.
One thing I have never figured out regarding the obvious hatred of President Obama by the far right elements in Congress and across the country is - this president has killed more so-called terrorists without capturing and trying them than any other president in history.
I mean - if he wasn't elected as a Democrat, he'd be hailed as a warrior hawk that makes W. look like a wimp.
I mean - if he wasn't elected as a Democrat, he'd be hailed as a warrior hawk that makes W. look like a wimp.
13
I am definitely NOT an Obama fan and never will be. However, give credit where credit is due, and I applaud him for taking this bold action. If only he did so in many other domestic and international matters.
We had interests that required us to provide what fig-leaves we could to Pakistan, a nation that if we hadn't depended on them for so long as a sometimes-ally during Russia's bloodletting in Afghanistan then our own, we probably wouldn't even talk to seriously, So the time of four lawyers for a few weeks was consumed in arranging angels on the head of a pin. Fine.
In the end, all that really matters is that we got the guy.
In the end, all that really matters is that we got the guy.
7
"In the end, all that really matters is that we got the guy." Ah, the end justifies the means. That was a philosophy popularized by one Richard Nixon. I guess it is safe to say you could not be characterized as a strict Constitutionalist. Or even a weak one.
Why did we never see any proof that Bin Laden was killed? Where is the video of what the White House staff was watching? Bin Laden's next door neighbor was interviewed on Pakastani TV and said Bin Laden never lived next door to him. Why have we not seen that interview? Hard to believe something without proof. Lots of unanswered questions. Americans deserve the truth, not a belief.
3
Bin Laden was a C.I.A. warrior in the Mahujadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's fighting the Soviets.
He knew too much.
"Dead Men Tell No Tales".
He knew too much.
"Dead Men Tell No Tales".
13
A kill and absolutely nothing has changed. That is why I am mystified why Osama wasn't captured for the intelligence value. I believe, one of the Black radicals of the 60's/70's stated, to paraphrase, "Today's radicals will be tomorrow's moderates"
2
A thoughtful observer finds it troubling that Osama Bin Laden was summarily executed without arrest, due process and trial. The lawyers simply crafted a legal justification for the Obama Administration's decision to kill a declared enemy. Bin Laden had no opportunity to speak on his own behalf or mount a defense in court.
German Nazi and SS war criminals were convicted in the famous Nuremburg Trials following World War II. Many were hanged. The Nuremburg Trials gave the world confidence that Allied prosecutors were civilized and the proceedings were legal, even in the face of Nazi barbarism.
Unfortunately, it appears that the four lawyers here have been used to paper over an uncivilized and barbaric execution. Bin Laden may have been a terrorist and a bad guy, but we won't ever know for sure since he didn't get his day in court.
U.S. lawyers have drafted briefs to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques," a.k.a. "torture" at Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, and other "black" sites. It is troubling that the legal profession has produced such spineless shills who don't hesitate to bend the law to justify uncivilized and barbaric behavior.
Come to think of it, German lawyers in the 1930's worked hard to create a legal system and racial laws which "justified" the mass murder of millions of Jews.
There is a difference between what is legal (i.e. what we can get away with) and what is right. It seems that the lawyers can no longer understand this difference.
German Nazi and SS war criminals were convicted in the famous Nuremburg Trials following World War II. Many were hanged. The Nuremburg Trials gave the world confidence that Allied prosecutors were civilized and the proceedings were legal, even in the face of Nazi barbarism.
Unfortunately, it appears that the four lawyers here have been used to paper over an uncivilized and barbaric execution. Bin Laden may have been a terrorist and a bad guy, but we won't ever know for sure since he didn't get his day in court.
U.S. lawyers have drafted briefs to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques," a.k.a. "torture" at Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, and other "black" sites. It is troubling that the legal profession has produced such spineless shills who don't hesitate to bend the law to justify uncivilized and barbaric behavior.
Come to think of it, German lawyers in the 1930's worked hard to create a legal system and racial laws which "justified" the mass murder of millions of Jews.
There is a difference between what is legal (i.e. what we can get away with) and what is right. It seems that the lawyers can no longer understand this difference.
13
"It depends what 'is' is." Only a lawyer could say such nonsense. Now it's irrevocably in our national discourse, for all time.
In their capacity as lawyers, their job is to determine what's legal. It's the job of lawmakers and politicians to determine what's right.
I think I can speak for my sister who was almost killed in the 911 attack...Tell it to the Marines!!!
It strikes me as a society that continues to play word games to justify the actions. Invasion of Iraq, torturing of prisoners, killing of wanted Americans in Yemen, killing of OBL. All these are neatly packaged in a binder with many hours of debate between lawyers.
Could someone tell me if an ethical review of our behavior has ever held sway? In a gray world filled with horrible choices, is this path of least horrible that to which we aspire?
Could someone tell me if an ethical review of our behavior has ever held sway? In a gray world filled with horrible choices, is this path of least horrible that to which we aspire?
19
Uh, no. We will have to get much more 'horrible' before we get the world in shape for America. And that is long overdue.
@Jon B.,
This is the reagan/GOP revolution legacy. It, manipulation (read deception and deceit) was and still is the very heart of everything they say and do.
I thought by now that their true intent to make America into a classed society where the classes are held firmly in place by the passive aggression of an economic and educational system designed for that purpose should have become clear and that the Press would be openly talking about it.
This is the reagan/GOP revolution legacy. It, manipulation (read deception and deceit) was and still is the very heart of everything they say and do.
I thought by now that their true intent to make America into a classed society where the classes are held firmly in place by the passive aggression of an economic and educational system designed for that purpose should have become clear and that the Press would be openly talking about it.
The wonderful thing about a President Trump, or President Carson, is that neither was ever a lawyer. Unlike the Democrats' poseur, and her ethically-challenged husband, and Obama.
8
So that gives them the leeway to violate the law whenever they find convenient, right?
Good riddance.........look what he hath wrought.........ISIL et al.
It could have been worse had he lived.
It could have been worse had he lived.
4
Well, I'm very glad bin Laden is sleeping with the fishes.
I also sleep better at night.
I also sleep better at night.
9
There was a moment, a precious moment,when 9/11 could have been prosecuted as a CRIME...How much ill could have been avoided..It was crime, not a war...
17
Bank robbery is a crime. Killing 3000 innocent people is an act of war.
hello h. Interesting to note, which very few people seem to remember, or even know about. In an article I read in the back part of the world news in the late nineties, in s small font, "Osama Bin Laden declares war on the United States" .
When I read this, I had the shivers. I knew that Osama was a billionaire, and that he had a following of jihadists. I thought.. Why isnt this on the front page? Why aren't we more concerned about this?"
The fact that I personally did nothing more than think this haunts me to this day, as I lost a friend and fellow musician in the attack.
Was it not a war? Or was it one that we sadly didnt notice was happening until it was too late?
When I read this, I had the shivers. I knew that Osama was a billionaire, and that he had a following of jihadists. I thought.. Why isnt this on the front page? Why aren't we more concerned about this?"
The fact that I personally did nothing more than think this haunts me to this day, as I lost a friend and fellow musician in the attack.
Was it not a war? Or was it one that we sadly didnt notice was happening until it was too late?
Legal deliberations ???
phooey ...
MURDER
phooey ...
MURDER
14
In 1945 the man whom we all cite nowadays whenever anyone asks, Who was the evillest man who ever lived? committed suicide in his bunker because he knew that if were captured alive (and he expected just that) he would be put on trial and completed humiliated before the inevitable execution. That's the tradition, after all: the winners parade the captured loser chieftains through the streets of Rome, and then kill him
A couple of weeks ago the Times magazine ran a cover story about the "mysteries of Abbotadad," and I wondered that the mystery of why Osama bin Laden wasn't taken alive was left unmentioned. Thank you for clearing this up. It seems to me that your article demonstrates that the Navy SEALs were all but ordered to kill him.
"The lawyers … discussed possible situations in which it might still be lawful to shoot Bin Laden even if he appeared to be surrendering — for instance, if militants next to him were firing weapons, or if he could be concealing a suicide vest under his clothing …" Or maybe if one of his wives made a sudden move, or he winked.
Thank the gods at least that the Obama administration chose not to wipe out the entire neighborhood with bunker-busting bombs. One death of a certifiable creep is far preferable to the deaths of scores of innocents. But it's still murder.
A couple of weeks ago the Times magazine ran a cover story about the "mysteries of Abbotadad," and I wondered that the mystery of why Osama bin Laden wasn't taken alive was left unmentioned. Thank you for clearing this up. It seems to me that your article demonstrates that the Navy SEALs were all but ordered to kill him.
"The lawyers … discussed possible situations in which it might still be lawful to shoot Bin Laden even if he appeared to be surrendering — for instance, if militants next to him were firing weapons, or if he could be concealing a suicide vest under his clothing …" Or maybe if one of his wives made a sudden move, or he winked.
Thank the gods at least that the Obama administration chose not to wipe out the entire neighborhood with bunker-busting bombs. One death of a certifiable creep is far preferable to the deaths of scores of innocents. But it's still murder.
6
While I was satisfied with the outcome, it did strike me at the time that there was no discussion over the issue that the US obviously went in with no intention of trying to capture Bin Laden alive.
1
Osama bin Laden, as former employee of the US government, obviously had information which would have been very embarrassing, if not damaging, to the US government, and so had to be exterminated extra-judiciously, and illegally, for reasons of "national security".
11
You can any lawyer to justify anything. If you get 4 together or more the sky is the limit. The fact is this was a bad decision to allow the murder of Bin-Laden. He could have been brought back and tried and let the chips fall. But this is not the way the imperial U.S. operates. It drones its citizens and innocents. It spies on its citizenry. It operates from the deep state with virtual impunity.
9
Are you sure we got the perpetrator of 9/11? I want justice, not the "usual suspect". Our FBI did not list bin Laden as one of those wanted for 9/11.
2
Lisa: What are you gonna do?
Creasy: What I do best. I'm gonna kill 'em. Anyone that was involved. Anybody who profited from it. Anybody who opens their eyes at me.
Lisa: [Whispering] You kill 'em all.
From the movie "Man On Fire"
Creasy: What I do best. I'm gonna kill 'em. Anyone that was involved. Anybody who profited from it. Anybody who opens their eyes at me.
Lisa: [Whispering] You kill 'em all.
From the movie "Man On Fire"
I understand readers who are both supportive and dismissive of this, and without going into the merits of the advice or the Administration's approach (really not seeing how you exclude the Attorney General, for example), I had one sobering thought -- are these four individuals now targets as a result of this report?
4
So we should give our Commander in Chief an A for effort for having a Rube Goldberg Machine of stretched & far-fetched legal loopholes constructed in order to justify his covert assassination?
The question remains, why silence such a valuable intelligence asset as Osama Bin Laden, the founder of Al Qaeda who is purported to have taken responsibility for the 911 attacks, when they could have just as easily arrested him?
Why was the order made to shoot Bin Laden dead without even requesting he put up his hands & get in the chopper?
What did Bin Laden know that was so dangerous that arresting or even abducting him was not an option, and instead a 'Kill Order' was mandated?
Such a famous alleged criminal would no doubt have had valuable intelligence, and a public trial would have conclusively established his responsibility for the attack.
As it stands, shoving a shrouded package off a boat under continually shifting narrative is not offering anyone any conclusive closure about anything, it's just creating more serious questions about the 911 attacks and the justifications of the vast foreign policy faux pas of invading Iraq & Afghanistan.
Two presidents have made us all pay dearly for their dubious military actions overseas. Mr. Obama should have shone a spotlight on the justifications for these wars & all the machinations & responsible parties, including the alleged perpetrator Bin Laden, and not buried another national militaristic disaster in the Book of Secrets.
The question remains, why silence such a valuable intelligence asset as Osama Bin Laden, the founder of Al Qaeda who is purported to have taken responsibility for the 911 attacks, when they could have just as easily arrested him?
Why was the order made to shoot Bin Laden dead without even requesting he put up his hands & get in the chopper?
What did Bin Laden know that was so dangerous that arresting or even abducting him was not an option, and instead a 'Kill Order' was mandated?
Such a famous alleged criminal would no doubt have had valuable intelligence, and a public trial would have conclusively established his responsibility for the attack.
As it stands, shoving a shrouded package off a boat under continually shifting narrative is not offering anyone any conclusive closure about anything, it's just creating more serious questions about the 911 attacks and the justifications of the vast foreign policy faux pas of invading Iraq & Afghanistan.
Two presidents have made us all pay dearly for their dubious military actions overseas. Mr. Obama should have shone a spotlight on the justifications for these wars & all the machinations & responsible parties, including the alleged perpetrator Bin Laden, and not buried another national militaristic disaster in the Book of Secrets.
28
Hauling bin Laden out of Pakistan would have been nearly impossible.
So I ask you . Are you proposing that we should not have killed Ben Laden because we should have captured and tortured him instead? You do realize that he would never had willingly given any information don't you? So murder bad but torture good?
...... because "alive" he would have been a liability.
Fascinating article and I agree with it 100 percent.
5
Sounds like a lot of make-work in regards to a covert operation. They're not supposed to be legal, hence the "covert."
3
It seems as if a lot of money and time was wasted crafting a legal opinion that was not necessary. Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans in an act of terror. We had the right to seek him out, no matter where he sought refuge, to take his life and the life of anyone who stood in our way. Paraphrasing Cicero, in time of war the law falls silent.
14
It is not that simple. We are bound by international law, which forbids covert lethal action on the sovereign territory of another country unless certain criteria are met. The U.S. is not free to just do whatever it wants, even when the target of an operation is a mass murderer.
They should get kudos.
On the other hand, why on earth would anyone have to worry about legalities regarding a swine like him?
The guy needed to be removed from the planet one way or the other, and I'm glad they did what they did.
On the other hand, why on earth would anyone have to worry about legalities regarding a swine like him?
The guy needed to be removed from the planet one way or the other, and I'm glad they did what they did.
70
Because we're a society governed by the rule of law
BobR,
It is grown adults who think childish things like this
"On the other hand, why on earth would anyone have to worry about legalities regarding a swine like him?"
That have lead us into the mess we have today. By thinking like that so many things were done wrong it is now impossible to fix the problems those mistakes have caused.
The short version is that we are a nation of laws. Not abiding by them makes us no different from uncivilized peoples.
Why do you think W's layers went to such lengths to invent fraudulent reasons to commit the crimes he did? It was to maintain the fiction he was abiding by the law when he was doing what he knew to be illegal and more importantly he knew to be wrong.
It is grown adults who think childish things like this
"On the other hand, why on earth would anyone have to worry about legalities regarding a swine like him?"
That have lead us into the mess we have today. By thinking like that so many things were done wrong it is now impossible to fix the problems those mistakes have caused.
The short version is that we are a nation of laws. Not abiding by them makes us no different from uncivilized peoples.
Why do you think W's layers went to such lengths to invent fraudulent reasons to commit the crimes he did? It was to maintain the fiction he was abiding by the law when he was doing what he knew to be illegal and more importantly he knew to be wrong.
This story keeps getting more interesting by the day.
Keep them coming.
Keep them coming.
7
No complaints from me but you don't have to be a lawyer to know that "Dead men tell no tales".
The administration not only hushed up a leader, but erased his memory and possible worship in the future.
I wonder if the "Romans" would kill Jesus again?
The administration not only hushed up a leader, but erased his memory and possible worship in the future.
I wonder if the "Romans" would kill Jesus again?
9
The Romans did not "kill" Jesus. There was a trial and crucifixion. They did not assassinate him.
Patrick, aka Y.B.Normal,
You said "I wonder if the "Romans" would kill Jesus again?"
Seems you may not know the history of the consequences of that deed as Rome is still with us today in the form of the RCC. That crucifixion lead to Constantine unifying the eastern and western empire and building Constantinople/Istanbul. The Christian faith became the faith of the Empire and he saw to it the doctrine was unified from the many thousands of different versions of Christianity that existed at that time down to the central singular story of Christianity that we all think we know. This eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. So Rome is still with us and that means the answer is yes. They even still use Roman language Latin.
I'm thinking you think that Rome ended as the result of crucifying Jesus.
You said "I wonder if the "Romans" would kill Jesus again?"
Seems you may not know the history of the consequences of that deed as Rome is still with us today in the form of the RCC. That crucifixion lead to Constantine unifying the eastern and western empire and building Constantinople/Istanbul. The Christian faith became the faith of the Empire and he saw to it the doctrine was unified from the many thousands of different versions of Christianity that existed at that time down to the central singular story of Christianity that we all think we know. This eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. So Rome is still with us and that means the answer is yes. They even still use Roman language Latin.
I'm thinking you think that Rome ended as the result of crucifying Jesus.
Very nasty situation all around. No "perfect" options.
I'm not all "warm and fuzzy" about having executed him without trial, but I think we can say in hindsight the administration made the right choices given bin Laden is gone and it seems nobody is using him as a rallying point. He's not sitting in Gitmo providing propaganda for terrorists.
Of course it would have been "more ideal" to have not invaded Pakistan's sovereignty, but the Pakistani government has serious allegiance and security issues. During the Cold War both Democratic and Republican presidents consistently violated international sovereignty by performing spying overflights of the USSR.
As much as I hate making excuses for legally questionable actions, the world is a mess of complicated grey scale issues and not simply black & white.
I'm not all "warm and fuzzy" about having executed him without trial, but I think we can say in hindsight the administration made the right choices given bin Laden is gone and it seems nobody is using him as a rallying point. He's not sitting in Gitmo providing propaganda for terrorists.
Of course it would have been "more ideal" to have not invaded Pakistan's sovereignty, but the Pakistani government has serious allegiance and security issues. During the Cold War both Democratic and Republican presidents consistently violated international sovereignty by performing spying overflights of the USSR.
As much as I hate making excuses for legally questionable actions, the world is a mess of complicated grey scale issues and not simply black & white.
166
I suppose an unarmed, helpless Bin Laden had zero intelligence value in terms of 9/11 or Pakistan's government? Or in terms of his earlier dealings with America?
Not needed. Bin laden was a real and immediate threat to the lives of American citizens. Nuff said.
3
As for Daniel Pearl and the thousands like him who have had their throats cut or been summarily executed for being gay or adulterers or Christian or Jewish or the wrong kind of Muslim: what was Bin Laden's or Ayman al-Zawahiri's or ISIS's legal grounds?
5
Lawyers justifying the assassination are one thing - what about the intelligence guys? Or were they more concerned about what Osama would tell than not tell vis a vis his support from the Saudis and the Pakistan military? It seems to me that you make up the legal case after you decide what would be the best option. Silencing OBL evidently served the government's interest in limiting what we know about al qaeda to what we can find out from the Bush and Obama administration, and their close ties, as assistants and financial backers, with OBL's organization. If even a quarter of the energy expended in trying to connect OBL to Hulssein were devoted to trying to connect OBL to his obvious allies, we'd be in an uncomfortable situation and have to admit that, for reasons of state, we are willing to overlook those who aid in terrorist attacks on US citizens. At least though the air would be cleared, and we wouldn't have to pretend that such talk was "conspiracy theory", the all purpose insult used to defend "cretin theory' - the theory that you shouldn't believe your eyes, that the Pentagon and President have it covered. Yeah, right.
6
And you would trust even a single word he would utter?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
For those who feel we should have risked lives to bring bin Laden "to justice": We did, and justice was accomplished.
We're not in the business of turning terrorists into martyrs. We're in the business of turning terrorists into corpses.
We're not in the business of turning terrorists into martyrs. We're in the business of turning terrorists into corpses.
57
You se them as corpses. The next generation of terrorists see them as martyrs. Every drone attack or illegal incursion into a foreign country, one our government claims to be an ally, gives rise to more terrorists.
5
I condemn the hypocrisy of the administration in initially describing the death of Bin Laden as anything other than an assignation and condemn the hypocrisy of the administration's lawyers in pretending that their work was anything other a predetermined legal outcome. (Note: I am not condemning the killing of Bin Laden, just the hypocrisy involved.)
13
I believe you are trying to say assassination.
The number 1 on our list of most-wanted is chillaxing in Abbottabad. Our guys are convinced the Pakistanis know about it. "But the administration feared that the Pakistani intelligence service might have sanctioned Bin Laden’s presence; if so, the reasoning went, asking for Pakistan’s help might enable his escape."
Bin Laden was buried at sea. Where are Pakistan's 120 nuclear weapons?
Bin Laden was buried at sea. Where are Pakistan's 120 nuclear weapons?
3
I wonder if Eisenhower or FDR had a staff of attorneys review and advice of D Day invasion of France?
48
A declared war obviously allows invasion. Note that we haven't had one since.
4
pete,
"I wonder if Eisenhower or FDR had a staff of attorneys review and advice of D Day invasion of France?"
Yes. Lawyers are important to every aspect of every government.
"I wonder if Eisenhower or FDR had a staff of attorneys review and advice of D Day invasion of France?"
Yes. Lawyers are important to every aspect of every government.
So he eats the body and blood of Jesus before he goes and watches someone get murdered......I'm sure Jesus would have approved. They obviously could have brought him back alive, tried him in front of the world for his crimes, and locked him up for life. Instead we make him a martyr and cement his legend status to all those who worship him.
5
Better a long gone martyr than a living, breathing reason to stir up idiots.
They obviously could have brought him back alive, tried him in front of the world for his crimes, and locked him up for life
-----------------------
So Bin Laden could become another jailbird hero, with his own radio program, like the cop killer in Philadelphia, Mumia Jamal, or whatever he calls himself?
-----------------------
So Bin Laden could become another jailbird hero, with his own radio program, like the cop killer in Philadelphia, Mumia Jamal, or whatever he calls himself?
@Michael T: What's with that "body and blood of Jesus" thing? Sounds kinda cannibalistic. And the crucifixion was human sacrifice. Primitive, man.
As for Bin Laden, if you think he was willing to be taken alive, you're a bit naive, I think.
As for Bin Laden, if you think he was willing to be taken alive, you're a bit naive, I think.
1
For the life of me I can't picture Bin Laden ever worrying the least about the legitimacy of sending hijacked civilian planes into noncombatant targets for the sole purpose of killing innocents. Frankly we were far too concerned about world opinion; even bin Laden expected us to come after him with blood in our eyes and not a law book in sight.
218
For the Junior Bush Reign of Error (TM), the sligan was "they hate us for our freedoms." So Bin Laden caused us to willingly jettison those very freedoms in order to pursue him. Makes "Mission Accomplished" appear in a very different light. Congratulations, he made us reach his level of barbarity.
3
Are you serious? Because Bin Laden wasn't concerned about killing innocents, we shouldn't be either? By that logic we have no moral authority to kill Bin Laden at all. Terrible, terrible post.
1
How exactly do you justify your view in the face of the United States' commitment to law? It's entirely non-sensical and hypocritical, unless you believe that law doesn't necessitate compliance at all times
3
""While the lawyers believed that Mr. Obama was bound to obey domestic law, they also believed he could decide to violate international law when authorizing a “covert” action, officials said."
So what we're saying here is that international law carries no weight? How is it possible for other countries to trust us when we make up the rules, in our favor, as we go along?
So what we're saying here is that international law carries no weight? How is it possible for other countries to trust us when we make up the rules, in our favor, as we go along?
52
As stated below, what objection could we have were Yemenis to assassinate our President on the grounds that his drone warfare killed hundreds or thousands of innocents in his country, constituting ongoing terrorist attacks?
3
ScottAndSteph, news flash! Nobody trust us. They go along just as spectators.
1
I think of it as a well-justified exception and would laud any other country that did the same.
it took ONLY 4 lawyers to decide that this guy needing killing?
3
Who cares? He killed thousands of Americans and was planning to kill more. Fortunately we got him before the evil vermin could do any more harm.
26
A sad day for me.
I had thought that in our country we did not assassinate but believed in trial by jury.
How times have changed --and not for the better.
==SFB
I had thought that in our country we did not assassinate but believed in trial by jury.
How times have changed --and not for the better.
==SFB
123
Did you loose anyone in the Twin Towers?
In your sadness, weep for the families of the fallen.
In your sadness, weep for the families of the fallen.
Bin Laden was an enemy combatant. Enemy combatants get killed. From Day 1 of the human race. Why didn't we bring all those Nazis and members of the SS and Gestapo and German soldiers to the US or wherever for trial? We did: very few of them. Most were killed (or escaped punishment).
2
@Stephen F Bauer, MD: I assume they were planning for the possibility that Bin Laden might not want to make himself available for a trial by jury. A more realistic scenario for the guys who went in after him was "kill or be killed," don't you think?
1
When last I checked, the death toll from 9/11 was 2,977. So now President Obama's lawyers looked six ways to Sunday for legal cover? Who was going to sue him [or, us, "we the people"?] Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Don't forget, please, that W. and Cheney had for-your-eyes-only intercepts under their noses warning of an attack by Osama bin Laden and they did...nothing. Updating this criminal neglect, Jeb Bush had the nerve to splutter that "my brother kept us safe." Perhaps the Times ought to have interviewed the relatives of those who saw 9/11 their final day for this "special report" ? The incinerated in the two towers? The desperate as they looked at death flying up at them from the street? Please, Times; why this fuss? Osama bin Laden is dead. What rules of American or international law were broken in preparing for an end to this universal menace? To whom do we, the trashed country on that day, owe an explanation?
13
This story doesn't allude to the Anwar al-Awlaki killing in September of the same year. But it seems obvious to conclude that armed with their shiny new rationalization of one execution, the Administration decided to go ahead with the extra-legal killing of a second wanted man, this time an American citizen.
In the second case they streamlined the questions of surrender/resistance by using a drone or cruise missile in Yemen. How quickly legal rationalizations escape their fussy moorings to become methods of convenience.
In the second case they streamlined the questions of surrender/resistance by using a drone or cruise missile in Yemen. How quickly legal rationalizations escape their fussy moorings to become methods of convenience.
69
Both these acts, without trial and conviction, are totally un-American, and will be the big black mark in Obama's legacy. Also part & parcel of his unnecessary library. He gave us all false hopes, and let us down.
6
And your alternative to the termination of terrorist leaders is?
1
this time an American citizen.
---------------------
A treasonous American citizen. "Dead for a ducat!" Sayonara.
---------------------
A treasonous American citizen. "Dead for a ducat!" Sayonara.
1
Bin Laden was a mass murderer who publicly exulted in the carnage of 9/11. Pakistan was sheltering him at the behest and funding by Saudi Arabia. The niceties of international law had little bearing on killing Bin Laden.
31
So you'd be in favor of cutting off military aid to our presumed allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
2
Too bad Boy George and Dick Cheney couldn't find these lawyers in 2001 to facilitate the execution of Bin Laden when he was holed up in Tora Bora in December 2001
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/the-battle-tora-bora
Thanks for your award-winning incompetence, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Company.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/the-battle-tora-bora
Thanks for your award-winning incompetence, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Company.
272
Had they done so you would be commenting that they committed a murder. Lose lose situation again.
1
The lawyers approved this, sounds similar to the lawyers allowing that waterboarding is not torture.
16
So, what's the point? So what if violated international law or a so called sovereign country laws that is known to be a safe haven for terrorists. We got the guy and that's all that matters. The important part is many people around the world will be safer without Bin Laden in power or in his skin. Let our intelligence agencies do their job, Charlie S, and quick wining about the legality of his raid.
3
This passage is both confusing and misleading. Bottom line: no lawyers did anything that even remotely affected the outcome for Osama Bin Laden.
Were there lawyers who approved the legal efficacy of plans and even rules of engagement? Of course.
...but it's mistaken to assume that they had Osama killed.
Were there lawyers who approved the legal efficacy of plans and even rules of engagement? Of course.
...but it's mistaken to assume that they had Osama killed.
2
Wow. So international law makes it easier to kill someone than to capture them alive? Are these the same lawyers that approve drone killings?
23
"Kill all the lawyers, " as Shakespeare noted, might have given Osama a decent christian burial-- but getting Osama was still an illegal snatch job. Rule of law, transparency?? Not here.
10
What if the lawyers would have not offered a positive decision to act? Would the President have acted to go forward with the raid? When executives ask lawyers for an opinion to take an action, do lawyers feel obliged to give the "right" answer?
3
It's all in the political spin. If this were the Bush administration, the progressive intelligencia would be up in arms. A good lawyer can always find a way to write the memo the client wants written. For all of the progressive intelligencia's concern about international law, they certainly seem to be able to find ways around it whenever it is convenient for them.
9
Often, strenuous attempts to justify self-defense seem to weaken the basis for acting. While Bin Laden had not been convicted in a court of law, he had on numerous occasions publicly testified to his guilt in the format of proudly claiming responsibility for the act. Moreover Bin Laden had on several occasions, publicly declared war on the United States.
Terrorism is war. A nation at war must take measures to defend itself. That is exactly what we did, no more and no less.
The post-attack efforts to bury Bin Laden in accord with Muslim traditions were made out of respect, not for Bin Laden and what he represented, but respect for the Muslim religion. Adherence to those standards did not detract from the success of the mission but announced to the world that we are still a nation of laws.
Terrorism is war. A nation at war must take measures to defend itself. That is exactly what we did, no more and no less.
The post-attack efforts to bury Bin Laden in accord with Muslim traditions were made out of respect, not for Bin Laden and what he represented, but respect for the Muslim religion. Adherence to those standards did not detract from the success of the mission but announced to the world that we are still a nation of laws.
143
Huge difference in the Bush and Obama admins? The latter is always looking for the best possible way to end wars the former began while waging a big lie campaign. There's no virtue in the former -- unless your dream is an ISIS dominated Middle East.
2
It seems that you ignore what Tony was alluding to. Adherence to Muslim burial traditions may have been the only lawful thing about this mission. I don't decry the mission for its merits, but its lawlessness remains and brings to question your claim that we're still a nation of laws. The executive branch clearly demonstrated again that international law is merely a suggestion and that it can skirt it at any point, mainly because of the United States' might. As a proud citizen, it is disconcerting to me that the legal justifications for bin Laden's assassination were not only planned in advance but more so that they were kept from the highest levels of government-even from senior members of the Obama administration. Namely, Eric Holder.
This is all troubling because it shows the massive potential for abuse by future presidents and shows how flippantly our government relates to its laws. I also want to bring attention to your claim that bin Laden was convicted in the court of public opinion and by virtue of being the head of Al-Qaeda which I don't think was ever disputed in this article.
Respectfully,
Alex
This is all troubling because it shows the massive potential for abuse by future presidents and shows how flippantly our government relates to its laws. I also want to bring attention to your claim that bin Laden was convicted in the court of public opinion and by virtue of being the head of Al-Qaeda which I don't think was ever disputed in this article.
Respectfully,
Alex
3
They were working for our government in secret. Maybe their identities should have been protected for their safety rather than having their pictures published in The Times.
15
Thankfully we live in an open society, not the one which you clearly envision.
Hopefully they had their permission...
1
I despise lawyers like those in this article but you are 100% correct.
Ha Ha. Only in the United States would capturing or killing a terrorist responsible for thousands of deaths of Americans require being "lawyered up!' If this were WW II presumably the US would have lost the war because every major military action would have been prohibited by the gaggle of lawyers. You think the US can defeat ISIS? Read this article and you'll see what the insurmountable obstacles are.
4
We were not at war with Pakistan. Huge distinction.
1
Dr. Politics, if we hadn't invaded Iraq without a declaration of war, botched the occupation, ISIS wouldn't exist. We had the declaration of war in WW II.
3
Except it's the opposite. The lawyers are agents of the state charged with finding a path forward. Their goal is yes. Regardless, the US has shown little hesitation in implementing aggressive wartime and foreign policies throughout its history, but especially in the last 15+ years. We do things now that would've been unthinkable in WWII.
2
Four government lawyers, a pencil and a noodle in a room and up pops a memo. Sounds about right.
2
Not exactly a disinterested, impartial group of legal minds. But the ultimate job needed to get done and thankfully, Navy SEALS did it.
7
Jeb's brother let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. President Obama & Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had bin Laden killed. Mission Accomplished!
80
Yes, kudos to the President and his successor there in the pic with their team. Definitely the Real mission accomplished. Though I can see a remotely possible investigatory angle for Howdy Gowdy, if he's brave enough to take her on again.
So they planned to kill Osama bin Laden and wrote legal memos justifying it - what is the issue here. I am pretty sure Osama didn't bother with legal issues when he plotted, planned and executed the attack on the World Trade Center. Killing he was the right call. Stop with the legal meandering.
6
the lawyers who are as dangerous as bankers can help anyone get out of a tricky situation and obama did the wise thing indeed.............in hindsight
2
Most interesting. A plan that had a moral imperative through and through.
As for the burial of Bin Laden at sea according to Muslim dictates, we stood heads and shoulders above all in that department. How many Christians who were obliterated on that god awful day had their Christian or Jewish burial?
We can walk proud.
As for the burial of Bin Laden at sea according to Muslim dictates, we stood heads and shoulders above all in that department. How many Christians who were obliterated on that god awful day had their Christian or Jewish burial?
We can walk proud.
76
Presuming, of course, that he was indeed buried as they said. You may recall that after the raid, the President himself said that there was an option on the table to bring bin Laden back alive, but the firefight and the fact that he was armed prevented it. As it turns out, none of that is true. So why are we to believe the burial at sea story?
We cannot sink to their level to justify our actions, That way leads to the abyss,
It doesn't matter that, or how, or why, or when Osama bin Laden was killed.
Even after death, Osama bin Laden continues to achieve his main goal: To end democracy in America by bogging us down in a permanent state of undeclared war that will ultimately cause our collapse under the weight of the corporate dictatorship that is currently on the verge of completely taking over our country.
Even after death, Osama bin Laden continues to achieve his main goal: To end democracy in America by bogging us down in a permanent state of undeclared war that will ultimately cause our collapse under the weight of the corporate dictatorship that is currently on the verge of completely taking over our country.
246
@Jon: Not to mention all the airport aggravation we'll all suffer for the rest of our lives.
3
Certainly, looking at the world today, I think bin Laden would be pleased that the West has so obligingly helped him light the fires of jihad. The Jihadists today are more numerous, more violent, and more widespread than before 2001.
2
There is no end to Outrage Hobbyists who need to think that the worst of times in now, that the end is near, and that they deserve some sort of credit for noticing. A minimal review of world history proves them wrong, a minimal review of psychology proves them self-absorbed.
3
As everyone can plainly see, the real heroes of the Bin Laden raid, the ones who put everything on the line, were the White House lawyers.
186
I'll set aside your snark since nobody is actually trying to pretend they put more on the line than the SEALs.
6
Lawyers risked a rsume demerit and the SEALS risked their lives. Sadly, a normal distribution of risk in our country.
1
Great comment.
3
This is one of the key differences between lawyers and other professionals. Other professionals tell you why you should not do something. Lawyers figure out why it's OK to do something.
47
Well actually other non-lawyer business professionals will ask lawyers to find a loophole if they can't find it themselves. It happens all the time.
3
The notion that lawyers do not advise their clients of the risks in any particular course of action is nonsense.
3
@ Mike "Other professionals tell you why you should not do something. Lawyers figure out why it's OK to do something."
That's because lawyers gull their clients that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and then have a nice piece of business when it doesn't work out that way.
That's because lawyers gull their clients that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and then have a nice piece of business when it doesn't work out that way.
So execution without trial or jury is now legal?
126
what trial did Bin Laden and his minions give to the 4 thousand innocents that they killed
11
Read the article.
5
Judy, with all due respect, you really want to go with that one when, after all, approximately 3,000 innocent individuals' lives were taken on 9/11.
I say good planning, good lawyering and good operational and improvisational work by all those involved in taking out bin-Laden. Thank you for doing so. Well done!
I say good planning, good lawyering and good operational and improvisational work by all those involved in taking out bin-Laden. Thank you for doing so. Well done!
16
The Navy SEALS didn't need a legal opinion to kill UBL. His holding a weapon sealed his fate.
19
Where did you get that? He did not hold a weapon.
2
Contrary to initial White House reports and "leaks" he wasn't holding a weapon. He was executed. You might want to read more investigative journalism, Sir.
Seriously? We had to waste taxpayer money justifying the death of this monster who was responsible for the loss of thousands of innocent American lives? PC culture really has gone too far.
97
If you read the article you would have learned they did that in case the raid went wrong and our SEALs were killed.
(PC=good manners)
(PC=good manners)
1
So Bob, do away with the justice system? Under your thinking, President Bush and VP Dick Cheney could face the same if the Iraqi government deemed them guilty of killing thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. The fact that most of the victims of the 9/11 attacks were Americans doesn't make it any greater than any other tragedy in which evil people -- whether individuals or government officials -- carry out death and destruction.
3
Craig, when we're at war we don't arrest our enemies and put them on trial.
Because it's war, not street crime. Bin Laden and Al Quida declared war on us.
Because it's war, not street crime. Bin Laden and Al Quida declared war on us.
Well, if they just injured him, he could have sued for damages.
2
Sorry, the SEALs did the hard part.
53
@ DVG
This operation could be approved by only one man - President Obama.
The CIA estimated there was only a 60% chance Bin Laden was in the targeted residence in Abbottabad.
Despite the specter of domestic and international condemnation if the raid had failed, - remember what happened to President Carter? - President Obama pushed the button anyway.
Then, and only then, could the Seals do the "hard part."
This operation could be approved by only one man - President Obama.
The CIA estimated there was only a 60% chance Bin Laden was in the targeted residence in Abbottabad.
Despite the specter of domestic and international condemnation if the raid had failed, - remember what happened to President Carter? - President Obama pushed the button anyway.
Then, and only then, could the Seals do the "hard part."
7
Great article. Filled with the normal hypocrisy and exceptions that politicians find necessary when they face reality.
Obama wants to close Gitmo but was willing to use it for Bin Laden?
Obama trusted Holder so much that he wouldn't tell him about it until the last minute. Or maybe he as trying to protect him in case things went bad.
Obama wants to close Gitmo but was willing to use it for Bin Laden?
Obama trusted Holder so much that he wouldn't tell him about it until the last minute. Or maybe he as trying to protect him in case things went bad.
13
the article said the lawyers wanted to use Gitmo in opposition to Obama...reread before u blame
4
And what would these jurisprudential geniuses say in response to a Yemeni legal scholar, invoking their precedent, in paving the way to an assassination of a US President, otherwise out of reach, who is given to drone-based killings of Yemeni civilians? Or do precedents not work both ways?
188
Bin Laden was not a head of state. Big difference.
6
The best you have is comparing 9/11 to the Yemeni civil war? By the way, there are plenty of people already out there doing evil who would be glad to kill our president. We call them terrorists and they are legitimate targets for our military.
2
They already have done so, killing 3000 of us here and 100s or 1000s elsewhere
we are just levelling (razing?) the plating field
we are just levelling (razing?) the plating field
1
Yes, one can always find a lawyer or two around to provide justification for just about anything that one wants to do as a government official. That was my experience as a bureaucrat working in federal and state governments. It has worried me ever since. It is an insight increasingly held by many citizens . . . witness the support that "outsider" presidential candidates are receiving. Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.
42
Shame. Bin Laden should have been brought to justice, not killed.
74
The US Government wanted no part of OBL revealing at trial who his allies were in the USG, that allowed his family to slip away after 9/11.
10
why...what justice did he give his innocent, unsuspecting, undeserving victims..and then they would have taken Americans hostage as long as we held him
3
@math45oxford: Sir [or madam]: In 2002, the same New York Times published A National Challenged. In No Escape, p. 22, there is a photograph with this caption: "People trapped on the upper levels of he north tower hang out the windows, calling for help." Across the page [p. 23], is a photograph with the text on page 22: "There was the merciless sight of bodies helplessly tumbling out, some of them in flames." You say "Bin Laden should have been brought to justice?" I envy your tender mercies.
2
Like a Tom Clancy plot; yet, this was so very real!
That lawyers are so necessary as whether or not a vital action in the military is taken is an example of how far this nation has descended. So if the lawyers all exclaimed that the mission was illegal, then it wouldn't have happened? And, of course, how do these lawyers control our combat missions on the battlefield? How far we have descended.
3
You may not like it, but the rule of law implies that sometimes the law will constrain action otherwise desired.
5
If the legal field were ethical, this would be a very helpful revelation of whom not to hire.
20
Did you get permission from Jonathan Mahler, Sy Hersh and Carlotta Gall to tell this facet of the story? I mean, this fills in a few more blanks so the entire narrative must be called into question. How are we supposed to trust a narrative of an operation that involves hundreds of people in the US government if it's not completely laid out like a mathematical equation from the very first telling?
4
Contingency planning and risk management are part of the modern landscape, be it war or peace. So, I don't think it is such a big deal as the article tries to implicate some sort of conspiracy. Why, having succession planning doesn't mean you try the bump off the top guy! Similar idea
8
I didn’t read anything into this articles as “some sort of conspiracy.”
No, once again it showed how our constitutional lawyer as POTUS was trying to look at every possible “what could go wrong” problem.
Careful, not bumbling into problems..no “shock and awe” instead “What are the legal ramifications of this covert operation by Spec Ops?”
I look at this current rat pack of POTUS candidates and just wish Obama could serve another term or two. Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Good job everyone...from this grateful citizen!
No, once again it showed how our constitutional lawyer as POTUS was trying to look at every possible “what could go wrong” problem.
Careful, not bumbling into problems..no “shock and awe” instead “What are the legal ramifications of this covert operation by Spec Ops?”
I look at this current rat pack of POTUS candidates and just wish Obama could serve another term or two. Repeal the 22nd amendment?
Good job everyone...from this grateful citizen!
7
Gee, these guys and gal don't look as à Beckety as John Yoo.
4
John Yoo is an embarrassment to the profession.
5
Jan,
"John Yoo is an embarrassment to the profession." And the everlasting shame of Boalt Hall and Cal.
"John Yoo is an embarrassment to the profession." And the everlasting shame of Boalt Hall and Cal.
4
I certainly agree about John Yoo. And it says something if you are an embarrassment to the legal profession!
You've heard the one about how do you tell the difference between a skunk and a lawyer?
There are skid marks in front of the skunk.
However, my point was: How exactly do you morally distinguish between the lawyers who provided the legal justification for killing the "bad guy" Osama bin Laden and John Yoo, who provided the legal justification for torturing the "bad guy" associates of Osama bin Laden's?
You've heard the one about how do you tell the difference between a skunk and a lawyer?
There are skid marks in front of the skunk.
However, my point was: How exactly do you morally distinguish between the lawyers who provided the legal justification for killing the "bad guy" Osama bin Laden and John Yoo, who provided the legal justification for torturing the "bad guy" associates of Osama bin Laden's?
2
For an extra $200, the lawyers would have found a way to put Bin Laden in a dunk tank at a county fair.
143
I agree with your basic point, but I want to point out the most dangerous part about this kind of legal cover is not it's not always driven by cynical greed. Sometimes these guys are true believers, who believe they are doing the right thing. They will bend or break any law to serve their country.
I don't think there is any reason to disparage these lawyers. A lawyer is not supposed to be a moral philosopher. It is not his job to do the right thing or decide what the right thing is. His job is to represent his client.
The person whose job presumably is to do the right thing is the President. If anyone has problems with the morality of what was done, it is the President who must be blamed.
The person whose job presumably is to do the right thing is the President. If anyone has problems with the morality of what was done, it is the President who must be blamed.
3
Along with the esteemed John Yoo as their consultant.