They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arrested. Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.
> ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’
A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
How was Obama a hypocrite? And why was this a defining moment for the US? The US has been killing foreign nationals for decades, think of all the CIA operations in the past. Obama ordered 540 drone strikes during his 8 years in office. I think the OBL operation was an expected response after finding his location. And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?
Whether Obama is a hypocrite or not is certainly a matter of opinion. The defining moment was the missed opportunity to end, or begin to end, the war on terror.
Up until that point the invasions, surveillance, renditions, torture and threat to civil liberties could be justified as, or at least categorized as, means to oppose Al Qaeda. By killing bin Laden he became just another enemy in a long line of people that the US wants to kill. And the methods of the war on terror, instead of a regrettable period in US history, just another tool for the US to use as it sees fit.
> And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?
Notice what Osama did not do: put his hands up and shout "I surrender". Osama is a bad case because of LOAC. Most criminals are not engaged in acts of war.
> It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong?
Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now.
China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.
> Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong?
The lease ran out, this was planned all along. The people don't like the changes that's for sure but their will was never something China would be bothered with.
In what sense is it legal to send a covert SEAL team to enter a sovereign allied country and arrest/kill somebody? US has no such jurisdiction in Pakistan.
That's pretty simple. bin Laden's organization was a direct threat to the US. Pakistan was protecting him. The primary responsibility of the US President is not to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, it is to ensure the security of the United States and its people. For the US President, respecting Pakistan's sovereignty sits below ensuring the security of the people of the US in their job description.
Besides that, international legality is defined solely by the countries with the biggest sticks. That will always be true, without exception. The UN and all global bodies of justice and rule setting derive their authority and possess capability solely at the permission of the most powerful nations.
The world isn't run by the UN, international legality isn't defined by 195 nations, it's all run by six or seven countries (which control the majority of all economic activity and by far have the most powerful militaries). The UN is a lever for those powerful nations to keep order in dealing with all the others. It's a means to herd cats.
There's a quote by a rather vile heiress named Leona Helmsley, paraphrasing: taxes are for the little people. Respecting sovereignty is only a fixed rule for the little countries. Why? Because of how consequences work and who can dish them out. I'm not advocating that, mind you, I'm saying that's actually how the world works and always will. You see it with every empire that has ever existed, you see it with the US, Russia, China, etc.
I don't see your point here. The US funded Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war? What's that have to do with the US's decision to kill the world's most wanted terrorist in a country giving him safety?
My point is that betraying the sovereignity of allies and claiming the higher moral ground is mutually exclusive. You can't be someone's friend and then punch them in the face when it's convenient. Pakistan is a shitty country, with shitty practices, but it IS an ally. Note that Saudi Arabia is a VERY shitty country, and is currently a strong ally.
"I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States"
"Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support."
This immediately brings to mind the Simpsons, where Phil Hartman as Lionel Hutz says "there's the truth, and then there's the truth (with a smiling face)". The US and Pakistan are allies in name only. Let's the politicians save face on both sides. But that's hardly the truth. The US didn't tell Pakistan about the OBL operation because they didn't trust them. You trust allies, you distrust non-allies. As a comparison, if OBL was in India or France, don't you think the US would have worked with these countries on the mission?
> ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of...
A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.