Replies

Very good post. All of this boils down to the key point I made in my original post: What is the governing jurisdiction under which the "legalities" of this kind of action are to be examined? It would seem that there are only three (or four) possibilities: U.S. law, Pakistani law, or "international law" (whatever that might mean). The fourth possibility would be a variation of U.S. law (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), though that probably doesn't come into play here unless there's an allegation that U.S. military personnel were operating without authorization.

The implications of this confusion are becoming more clear now, as the Pakistani government appears to be making public statements that they were fully involved in this operation -- even after protesting about it a couple of days ago. I suspect this is because they know they'd have a legal dilemma on their hands if they don't pretend to have been involved -- i.e., how do they react to a U.S. military mission inside their borders to capture/kill a person who is not a U.S. citizen?

The Barbary Pirates example is a good illustration of just how well the U.S. legal system was originally designed. The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) specifically gives Congress the power to declare war, "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy." One reason why the "Armies" and "Navy" are listed separately is that they had two completely different functions under U.S. law. The "Army" was a typical military force that would be used in warfare against other countries and to repel invasions, while the "Navy" was designed to function in places with no governing jurisdiction at all (i.e., the "High Seas").

This is why the U.S. Marine Corps was organized under the U.S. Navy as a naval infantry unit. The action against the Barbary Pirates was a military campaign against an enemy thousands of miles away who could not be dealt with through traditional diplomatic or military means -- in response to piracy in open waters that had no governing jurisdiction. This may also explain why a Navy SEAL unit was used in the Osama bin Laden raid (as opposed to Army Special Forces), too.

All in all, it's a very complicated question -- and one that shouldn't be glossed over, in my opinion.

"The fourth possibility would be a variation of U.S. law (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), though that probably doesn't come into play here unless there's an allegation that U.S. military personnel were operating without authorization."

Well, in fairness, there could be UCMJ implications if bin Laden was standing there with his hands up, which is an internationally recognized sign of surrender. This opens up an entirely different can of worms, legally.

To be clear, I have no reason to believe that he was, nor would I lose a wink of sleep if he did surrender but was killed anyways. But, this does get into a fairly murky element of military law, one that has been debated for decades - can the President authorize the through Executive Order, the direct and purposeful execution of an enemy combatant under any circumstance. Some believe that he can, others do not.

Having said that, this also underscores the difficulties that our own service men have when operating in a plainly urban, even residential environment, going door-to-door, room-to-room where NO ONE is wearing any kind of uniform and where the enemy is frequently surrounded by women and children (some of whom themselves can be combatants).

It's all a very messy business, and I think second-guessing our service men in these cases is very, very problematic. I think that this event underscore COMPLETELY the runaway dangers of US participation in the International Criminal Court. While I don't think there's even a remote chance of charges being brought against these SEALs in a US military or civilian court (ever), I wouldn't say the same about similar charges in an international criminal court.

This is why we should NEVER sign and ratify that treaty. It would be a disaster for us. There is no doubt there are plenty of crazy-ass international lawyers that would gladly prosecute these guys for murder.

It would seem that there are only three (or four) possibilities: U.S. law, Pakistani law, or "international law" (whatever that might mean).

As far as our government is concerned, our international actions should be ruled by the Law of Nations.

§ 73. The acts of individuals are not to be imputed to the nation. However, as it is impossible for the best regulated state, or for the most vigilant and absolute sovereign, to model at his pleasure all the actions of his subjects, and to confine them on every occasion to the most exact obedience, it would be unjust to impute to the nation or the sovereign every fault committed by the citizens. We ought not, then, to say, in general, that we have received an injury from a nation because we have received it from one of its members.

§ 74. unless it approves or ratifies them. But, if a nation or its chief approves and ratifies the act of the individual, it then becomes a public concern; and the injured party is to consider the nation as the real author of the injury, of which the citizen was perhaps only the instrument.

§ 75. Conduct to be observed by the offended party. If the offended state has in her power the individual who has done the injury, she may without scruple bring him to justice and punish him. If he has escaped and returned to his own country, she ought to apply to his sovereign to have justice done in the case. Law of Nations, Chapter VI., Emmerich de Vattel

-----

All in all, it's a very complicated question -- and one that shouldn't be glossed over, in my opinion.

Agreed....but you will find a great many people who will flambe` anyone who mentions the ends may not always justify the means.