LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  May 2011

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE May 2011

Subject:

Spiegel - What International Law Says about the Killing of Bin Laden

From:

Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 16 May 2011 09:42:05 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

05/13/2011
Terrorists Have Rights Too
What International Law Says about the Killing of Bin Laden
Osama bin Laden: Was killing him the right thing to do?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,762417,00.html#ref=rss

The elimination of al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden earlier this 
month was widely celebrated. But was it the right thing for the US to 
do? International law expert Kai Ambos argues that killing him was both 
illegal and morally dubious.
Info
For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be 
stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently 
logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on 
the "i" symbol.

Terrorists, even Osama bin Laden, are humans. As such, they have rights; 
human rights. Among these rights are the right to life, the right to 
humane treatment and the right to a fair trial. Fundamental human rights 
remain valid even in a state of emergency; they are impervious to such 
exceptions.

In peacetime, the right to life can only be limited in extraordinary 
circumstances, in particular by reason of self defense. If it is true 
that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, self defense in 
response to an unlawful attack on the part of entering US Special Forces 
can be ruled out. Clearly, such an operation takes place under extreme 
pressure and it is conceivable that the Special Forces acted on the 
mistaken belief that they were under attack by bin Laden or his people 
-- criminal lawyers call this "putative self defense" -- but this would 
not make the killing lawful. It would only cast light on the mental 
state of the troops in question, and thus their culpability.

Yet, these soldiers are especially trained for such an operation, they 
are the elite of the elite. If we cannot demand restraint in the use of 
force from them, then we can't demand it from anybody -- not from the 
ordinary policeman in the street nor from the citizen defending his life 
or home. From this perspective, it seems unlikely that they shot bin 
Laden out of fear or by mistake. Rather they knew perfectly well what 
they were doing and killed him wantonly and willingly.

Why Are Al-Qaida Criminals Treated Differently?

Here is the problem. A targeted killing of a terrorist does not, 
contrary to what US President Barack Obama has suggested, do a service 
to justice; rather, it runs contrary to it. A state governed by the rule 
of law, treats even its enemies humanely. It arrests terrorists and 
brings them before a court. This is exactly what Germany did with the 
Red Army Faction (RAF) and what it does today with al-Qaida members. 
This is what the US did in Nuremberg with the Nazis and what it promotes 
all over the world with other criminals against mankind. Why are the 
criminals of al-Qaida treated differently?

Should their guilt be established by way of a fair trial, they can be 
punished with severe sentences, including in some countries like the US, 
with the death penalty. The trial must come first, though. A killing in 
the absence of a fair trial constitutes an extra-judicial or extra-legal 
execution, which is unworthy of a state ruled by law (Rechtsstaat). 
Indeed, it is an act for which countries not ruled by law 
(Unrechtsstaaten) are charged before human rights bodies. Those who 
carry out or approve such extra-judicial killings forfeit the right to 
reproach authoritarian states for the very same practices.

War, i.e. an "armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, 
presents a different legal situation. In such circumstances, people can 
lawfully be killed when they directly participate in hostilities. The 
prohibition on killing is suspended in international armed conflicts for 
combatants and in non-international armed conflicts for so-called 
fighters or de facto combatants.

These actors can, under specific conditions, also be the subjects of 
targeted killings. The most important condition is that the principle of 
proportionality is complied with, i.e. less severe measures (such as 
arrest) are to be preferred and unnecessary civilian victims must be 
avoided. If a targeted killing occurs in foreign territory, the 
territorial state must consent to the operation; otherwise the action 
amounts to a violation of state sovereignty, prohibited by Public 
International Law.

The Misleading Rhetoric of the "War on Terror"

None of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the fight 
against international terrorism, and in particular al-Qaida (Res. 1267 
of 1999 to Res. 1974 of 2011), authorize the carrying out of operations 
on foreign territory, nor the arrest, and even less the killing, of 
(suspected) terrorists. These resolutions can, at best, be read, in line 
with the various Terrorism Conventions, as allowing the extradition or 
prosecution (aut dedere aut iudicare) of terrorism suspects.

In the case at hand, the targeted killing was not permitted since the US 
-- contrary to the misleading rhetoric of "the war on terror" -- is not 
involved in an armed conflict with al-Qaida. A loose and decentralised 
terrorist network does not fulfil the criteria for classification as a 
party to a conflict within the context of International Humanitarian 
Law. It lacks, above all, a centralized and hierarchical military 
command structure and the control of a defined territory.

Were we nevertheless to proclaim an international armed conflict against 
al-Qaida, the whole world would become a battlefield and the classic 
understanding of an armed conflict as being on a defined state territory 
and thus involving limited military confrontation, would be extended so 
as to know no bounds. While one cannot deny that armed conflicts can 
entail "spill over effects," such as via the retreat of one of the 
parties to the conflict into the territory of a neighboring state (as, 
for example, occurred when the Taliban fled from Afghanistan to 
neighboring Pakistan), the extra-territorial reach of such conflicts 
always reverts back to the original territorial armed conflict. 
Otherwise, the whole world would be turned into a battlefield with 
unforeseeable consequences.

Ultimately, this would lead to a worldwide "war on terror" involving all 
states where "terrorists" reside without them ever having entered into a 
formal armed conflict with the state waging this war. Indeed, this has 
been the position of the US government since Sept. 11, 2001. To the 
disappointment of many, the Obama administration has forcefully 
reconfirmed this position by killing bin Laden and by the killing of 
many alleged al-Qaida members (and civilians) before him by the 
increased use of predator drones.

Triumphing over the Terrorist Injustice

One may be able to understand this position in the light of Sept., 11 
and what it did to the self-esteem of the US, the world's only 
superpower, humiliated as never before. But does this justify carrying 
out a policy which deliberately sidesteps the recognized principles of 
international humanitarian law?

Lastly, even if one wanted, for the sake of argument, to suppose the 
existence of an armed conflict between the US and al-Qaida, only those 
directly involved in the hostilities could be subject to military 
attack. They themselves must carry out military operations, command such 
operations or authoritatively plan them. They must further carry out a 
"continuous combat function." This is also in no way certain as regards 
bin Laden, since many believe he was only the spiritual leader of 
al-Qaida and had no influence on concrete military operations. The video 
footage recently released by the US seems to confirm this view.

Beyond these complex and indeed contentious legal questions, lies the 
much more fundamental issue as to whether the Western world really wants 
to deprive their terrorist enemies of their right to life and other 
fundamental human rights and declare them military fair game. To ask the 
question is to answer it in the negative. The moral and political 
superiority of a free and democratic society dictates that it treats its 
enemies as persons with minimal rights and does not do as the enemy does 
-- act with barbarism and contempt for mankind.

It does not wage "war" against terrorists, but combats them with a fair 
and proportional criminal law, in line with the rule of law. This does 
not exclude the use of force and even the killing of terrorists as 
ultima ratio but only respecting the rules and conditions set out above. 
This alone ensures the kind of justice that has been promoted 
particularly by the US since Nuremberg -- a kind of justice which many 
of us thought President Obama had resuscitated. This is the only 
foundation from which we can triumph over the terrorist injustice.
_______________________________________________
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6124 (20110515) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager