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?
That's my point - being allies "in name only" is misleading and dishonest. Anyway, imo, we are close to on the same page and are arguing semantics, so let's stop wasting each other's time (that's really directed at both of us, not a passive-aggressive stab at you).
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.