What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

He says the Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler's worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail.

And 65 years later he says the US should again have supported a trial of the world's most wanted international criminal bin Laden.

"It's a right that we give to every mass murderer and always have," he told the BBC.

"This is what distinguishes us from the tyrants."

Both apply to the same type of conflict.

1. This Protocol ... shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

My previous post proved that the war on terror is classified as a NON-international conflict, which is the sort of conflict that is covered by Protocol II.

Domestic politics is fine. The original question was whether this is a war. Domestic trappings of war are as helpful as international trappings of war for proving that point.

Pakistan says the U.S. acted in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution in entering and killing Osama.

The Pakistani foreign ministry has said the operation against bin Laden was conducted in accordance with U.S. declared policy that its forces would take a direct action against the most wanted terrorist wherever he was found in the world.

The minister said bin Laden was involved in attacks on Pakistan, so the U.S. operation against him was not a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty, APP reported.

You got a link for that?

[...]That if it is in Pakistan's national interest we could go and bomb the territory of any other state. I think no sensible person anywhere in the world would endorse such a point of view. Can you think of a NATO member state bombing another NATO member country? So it has to be seen objectively.[...]
[...] I am not saying whether it is legal or illegal. It is for the jurists and the historians to judge and decide. There are many people within the US even who are now debating this issue.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

. . . killing the enemies' leader is hardly illegal. It's not even immoral.

I'd like to emphasize this.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- 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.

We don't have all the facts yet, but I'm starting to agree with Thomas: this is beginning to look more and more like an execution than a killing. I'm not sure what sort of "resistance" OBL was putting up, but it now seems clear that he was unarmed. If the SEALs didn't have the means of restraining an unarmed 54-year old man who was putting up "resistance," then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this wasn't a "kill-or-capture" mission, it was just a kill mission.

Another security official said the wife was shot in the leg during the operation and did not witness her husband being killed. He also said one of bin Laden's eldest daughters had said she witnessed the Americans killing her father.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give their names to the media.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's intelligence agency has concluded that bin Laden was "cash strapped" in his final days, according to a briefing given by two senior military officials. Disputes over money between the terror leader and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, led al-Qaida to split into two factions five or six years ago, with the larger faction controlled by al-Zawahri, they said.

The officers spoke to a small group of Pakistani reporters late Thursday. Their comments were confirmed for The Associated Press by the same security official who spoke about the shooting of bin Laden's wife and who was present at Thursday's briefing.

The officer didn't provide details or elaborate on how his agency made the conclusions about bin Laden's financial situation or the split with his deputy, al-Zawahri. The al-Qaida chief apparently had lived without any guards at the Abbottabad compound or loyalists nearby to take up arms in his defence.

The image of Pakistan's intelligence agency has been battered at home and abroad in the wake of the raid that killed bin Laden. Portraying him as isolated and weak could be aimed at trying to create an impression that a failure to spot him was not so important.

Documents taken from the house by American commandos showed that bin Laden was planning to hit America, however, including a plan for derailing an American train on the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The confiscated materials reveal the rail attack was planned as of February 2010.

Late Thursday, two Pakistani officials cited bin Laden's wives and children as saying he and his associates had not offered any "significant resistance" when the American commandos entered the compound, in part because the assailants had thrown "stun bombs" that disorientated them.

One official said Pakistani authorities found an AK-47 and a pistol in the house belonging to those inside, with evidence that one bullet had been fired from the rifle.

"That was the level of resistance" they put up, said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

His account is roughly consistent with the most recent one given by U.S. officials, who now say only one of the five people killed in the raid was armed and fired any shots, a striking departure from the intense and prolonged firefight described earlier by the White House and others in the administration.

U.S. officials say four men were killed alongside bin Laden, including one of his sons.

Reflecting the anger in Pakistan, hundreds of members of radical Islamic parties protested Friday in several Pakistan cities against the American raid and in favour of bin Laden. Many of the people chanted "Osama is alive" and blasted the U.S. for violating the country's sovereignty.

The largest rally took place in the town of Khuchlak in southwestern Baluchistan province, where about 500 people attended.

"America is celebrating Osama bin Laden's killing, but it will be a temporary celebration," said Abdullah Sittar Chishti, a member of the Jamiat Ulema Islam party who attended the rally in Khuchlak. "After the martyrdom of Osama, billions, trillions of Osamas will be born."

Thomas wrote:

He hadn't engaged in a terrorist plot. The CIA had made a mistake.

Yes they did, but then they didn't compound it by killing the man.

Do you know whether or not the US government paid the man for his damages? I'm hoping they did.

So why didn't the SEALs shoot Mr. Bin Laden in the leg?