Was Shooting bin Laden Legal?
Written by: James W. Huston Published: May 4, 2011
Now that the fog of war is clearing in Pakistan, we’ve learned that what we were originally told—that Osama bin Laden was armed and hid behind his wife—isn’t correct. It appears a Navy SEAL shot bin Laden in the head when he was unarmed. Predictably, people are now questioning whether shooting bin Laden was justified, or even legal.
After 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force. It gave the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations, organizations or individuals who played a role in 9/11. The act passed by Congress was drafted with bin Laden in mind:
“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
The fact that this allows the U.S. to go after a person is extraordinary. I can think of no other example of Congress overtly authorizing force against a person.
Before 9/11, the United States dealt with terrorism as a crime and attempted to capture and try anyone who attacked American interests around the world. Bin Laden had been conducting his personal war against the United States for years. He issued a “fatwa” (in Al Quds, the London newspaper) declaring war against the United States as far back as 1996, directing al Qaeda operatives to kill Americans wherever they could be found.
With the Authorization to Use Military Force, our response to his actions changed from police action, to war.
Does the “Authorization to Use Military Force” carry any weight as a law, since there is no such power given to Congress in the Constitution? – Read the rest at CommandPosts.
The shooting of bin Laden brings many questions to the forefront. Legal or not, justifiable or not, right or not. The answers all depend on a persons point of view. America is a nation of laws. These laws are needed to maintain a society. These laws have always been the guiding light for right and wrong. These laws have made us a fair and equitable country. So how can this action against bin Laden be right.
The times, they are a changin’. Well before 9/11, bin Laden was waging war against our country. He openly said that we are infidels and the great evil. He characterized us as the enemy of Islam. While his sect of Islam is extremely radical, he does not represent all of Islam. What he did represent was a clear and present threat to this country. That threat still clearly exists in his followers.
They attacked America and Americans. They wish to eradicate us for not seeing things their way. They declare that other members of Islam that do not agree with them should be killed. The Koran does not say this. The key word is “radical”. Their actions make them no better than a rabid dog. Ask those that object to bin Laden’s death if they would allow a rabid dog to roam free. The answer would be NO! Those persons would want someone to take the animal out. That is exactly what our SEAL team did! These are times that require us to fight fire with fire. This is a time where we are fighting an enemy without scruples, without compassion and without care for anyone or anything except their own kind. America must adapt and persevere. We must fight fire with fire and more. Al Quada brought it to us. They continue to attack us at every turn. They will attack us HERE again if they can. I vote to give our Military and Special Ops Groups whatever they need to pursue the enemies of our country and the free hand to stop those that are our enemies. God Bless America and God Bless our men and women that serve to protect our country!
I have always been,a proponent of, “When In Rome, Do As The Romans Do,” and secondly, always making an exception when an analysis of a specific situation demonstrates more short- and long-term advantages for an exception to the rule.
In the Ben Laden shooting case, I would agree that both the short- and long-term consequences were better served in this PARTICULAR situation, regardless of whether or not there was a constitutional law to support the shooting.
Since there are many examples of individuals and/or nations falling when they refrained from fighting fire with fire, that is not a practical solution.
Still, there is a very real possibility that, over time, one will become like the enemy one is fighting when their own tactics are used to defeat them.
I come down on the side of using overwhelming force to end the conflict as soon as possible, thus avoiding becoming like the enemy. The longer the fire lasts, the more likely one will become like the enemy.
On the one hand, it is true that the law has to be consistently applied to everyone for it to be effective.
However, it is also true that there are always exceptions to the rule because reality never completely fits into the verbal “representation” of reality we use to codify a particular law.
There is an old Zen Buddism saying that “once you teach a child that bird over there is a sparrow, he can no longer see the bird.” The saying points out that words are not reality, the “sparrow” box is not the bird.
I agree with Huston that in the shooting of Ben Laden, the Congressional law gave the SEALS the authorization to shoot Ben Laden, but I would also point out that the President is the one who we have elected to make exceptions to the rule. e.g. he can lawfully pardon the SEAL who shot Ben Laden.
I would not advocate eliminating the President being able to make exceptions to the rule in the interests of forcing consistency in those rare cases where an analysis shows more pros than cons in both the short and long term.
I also would agree that there may very well come a time when the President screws up and makes an exception that we could all agree was a mistake, and there will be calls to prosecute the President.
I would do so, myself, but not with the standard being whether or not he broke the law, but whether or not this was a valid exception to the rule.
I understand that no one in the legal community would support such a standard and it therefore will not happen; however, reality is still operating and will extract its price unless a way around the conflict can be found.
Since we can’t actually try out two different choices in each particular situation, I come down on the side of at least trying to make an individual decision that always maximizes both the short- and long-term consequences.
I realize that such analysis must be rare and conducted by the most informed and wise individuals, but there should be a place for that.