The Legality of Killing Osama
Now that the questionable celebration has died down, the new conversation seems to be about the legality of Osama Bin Laden's death. Leafirkins has covered this better than I can. IANAL, but Osama was a civilian operating in an ICRC continuous combat function which caused him to lose his protection against direct attack, making him a legitimate target. He'd already planned and carried out many operations, had been managing his organization by courier and making motivational tapes for people continuing his attacks, and was planning more attacks. When a civilian like Bin Laden takes part in an armed conflict or terrorism, they lose immunity from being targeted that they would otherwise have under the Geneva Conventions and may be legally subject to a targeted killing.
Once Osama is in custody that changes things. Once he's a prisoner he's no longer operating in a continuous combat function, and prisoners (both civilian and military) have Geneva rights and protections. That's why we can't shoot Khalid Sheikh Mohammed today - because as a prisoner he's got Geneva protections, and is not operating in an ICRC continuous combat function.
Even if Osama was a legitimate target that doesn't mean it doesn't matter how we kill him. It's obviously illegal to torture him to death, or run him over with Grave Digger, or bludgeon him to death with the last surviving pair of ivory-billed woodpeckers. I can't prove that SEAL Team 6 didn't do these things, but I also have no reason to suspect that they did, which relegates those possibilities to the realm of unfounded speculation that most people shouldn't take seriously. Attackers are obliged to avoid collateral damage but if the time were carefully chosen it would have been legal to drop a JDAM or have a Predator shoot Osama with a missile. Capturing him alive and unharmed would have been optimal, but that SEALs killed 5 people (including Bin Laden and his 2 bodyguards) and spared 12-13 of Bin Laden's housemates, which seems like a very good ratio both given what was going on and compared to the alternatives they were considering.
Obviously this issue is a bit complicated, but I don't think it's all that complicated as long as you understand the difference between a free person and a prisoner, and a regular civilian vs. a continuously combative one, and what there's evidence of happening vs. unfounded speculation.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and I've read reasonable opinions that disagree with this one, but this one is mine and I'm happy with it so far.
Once Osama is in custody that changes things. Once he's a prisoner he's no longer operating in a continuous combat function, and prisoners (both civilian and military) have Geneva rights and protections. That's why we can't shoot Khalid Sheikh Mohammed today - because as a prisoner he's got Geneva protections, and is not operating in an ICRC continuous combat function.
Even if Osama was a legitimate target that doesn't mean it doesn't matter how we kill him. It's obviously illegal to torture him to death, or run him over with Grave Digger, or bludgeon him to death with the last surviving pair of ivory-billed woodpeckers. I can't prove that SEAL Team 6 didn't do these things, but I also have no reason to suspect that they did, which relegates those possibilities to the realm of unfounded speculation that most people shouldn't take seriously. Attackers are obliged to avoid collateral damage but if the time were carefully chosen it would have been legal to drop a JDAM or have a Predator shoot Osama with a missile. Capturing him alive and unharmed would have been optimal, but that SEALs killed 5 people (including Bin Laden and his 2 bodyguards) and spared 12-13 of Bin Laden's housemates, which seems like a very good ratio both given what was going on and compared to the alternatives they were considering.
Obviously this issue is a bit complicated, but I don't think it's all that complicated as long as you understand the difference between a free person and a prisoner, and a regular civilian vs. a continuously combative one, and what there's evidence of happening vs. unfounded speculation.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and I've read reasonable opinions that disagree with this one, but this one is mine and I'm happy with it so far.