Sorry, but I could not disagree more. There is a line, and it's not "fine" at all. In fact, it's enormous - it's called a border - as in Waco happened inside the territorial border of the US, and bin Laden direct action engagement did not. US service members are not allowed to engage in military operations (with some HIGHLY limited) exceptions, under the terms of Posse Comitatus. No such restrictions apply outside our borders.
US military service personnel are not law enforcement agents. They don't, for good reason, have to abide by the same rules of engagement as a LEO. Not to oversimplify it too much, but they can engage an enemy with lethal force so long as that enemy is not injured or in a place that is internationally recognized as a safe-harbor zone - like a hospital or place of worship (generally), or in the process of surrendering. That doesn't (necessarily) mean that the enemy has to be armed. In fact, it's not against the rules of warfare to engage enemies in retreat.
There are, in the rules of international warfare, rules that prohibit such actions outside the theater of combat. But, IMO, those rules are more than a bit anachronistic as they relate to this current threat. Where isn't the battlefield in this war? And, I clearly think that the quasi-tribal areas of northern Pakistan are well-within those battlefield borders.
Having said that, I think your point is meritorious when discussing US service members engaging US citizens outside the confines of the country, and targeting those citizens for "assassination". That, as a US legal matter, becomes much more complicated. I think reasonable people can disagree about its legality.
I would have loved to have been the one to put a bullet in ol bennie’s head. I just wished they had removed his head and brought it back in a gunny sack or a sand bag.
There is a line, and it's not "fine" at all. In fact, it's enormous - it's called a border - as in Waco happened inside the territorial border of the US, and bin Laden direct action engagement did not. US service members are not allowed to engage in military operations (with some HIGHLY limited) exceptions, under the terms of Posse Comitatus. No such restrictions apply outside our borders.
Right. That's exactly why the issue of "governing jurisdiction is so important. The legal limitations for U.S. military personnel under U.S. law aren't terribly important in the Waco example I've used. It's not as if we'd feel any better about the whole matter if the Branch Davidians had been incinerated during a raid by Brazilian commandos, right?
There are, in the rules of international warfare, rules that prohibit such actions outside the theater of combat. But, IMO, those rules are more than a bit anachronistic as they relate to this current threat. Where isn't the battlefield in this war? And, I clearly think that the quasi-tribal areas of northern Pakistan are well-within those battlefield borders.
This is why a clear declaration of war by Congress is so critical, not some half-@ssed "authorization of force" that can be construed to mean anything a civilian or military leader wants it to mean. As for the question I've highlighted from your post, you obviously believe there are places that are not part of the "battlefield" in this "war" (e.g., Waco, Texas).
Having said that, I think your point is meritorious when discussing US service members engaging US citizens outside the confines of the country, and targeting those citizens for "assassination". That, as a US legal matter, becomes much more complicated. I think reasonable people can disagree about its legality.
That's right, but keep in mind it also has to do with non-citizens who are acting inside or outside the U.S. That's part of the whole dilemma here. If Osama bin Laden is targeted because he's an enemy of the United States, then does it make sense that he can be "legally" killed in Pakistan but must be apprehended and subject to prosecution if he had been living on a compound in Dearborn, Michigan?