to wonder with what authority USA killed Osama Bin Laden.

[Mamaz0n]

Since when has murder been justice?

Don't get me wrong, i think it is a good thing that he has died. I think that to imprison him would have caused massive uprising in violence and kidnaps etc.

But it bothers me that America has just decided that this man is guilty and therefore acted to murder him.

It is my (probably naive) understanding that you can't be extradited to a state that has the death penalty, so how exactly can Obama's order to kill Bin Laden be at all legal?

I have even just heard that the Pakistani government were not even aware that the USA were taking this action.

I am sorry but it sits very uncomfortably with me.

Actually that is not the case cotedazur. The 1907 Hague convention says that only you have to be wearing the insignia of an army to be a legitimate combatant. The 1949 Geneva convention says similar. The 1977 additional protocol to the Geneva convention gives more recognition to guerilla type fighters, as long as they clearly show themselves to be combatants during a battle. The us, however, has not ratified the additional protocol and is arguably not bound by that article as it is probably not customary international law

Also the idea of the people taking up arms comes from the 1907 hague convention which says that usually private citizens would be culpable for taking part I hostilities unless it was a levee en masse - a spontaneous uprising of the populace. That hardly applies here.

At the risk of boring everyone more than I have already - a crash course in international law. there are two sources of international law on armed conflict: treaty and customary international law. The relevant treaties are the 1907 hague convention, the 1949 Geneva conventions, and the 1977 additional protocols. Almost everyone has signed the 1907 and 1949 conventions and even if they haven't they will be bound by them as they are considered to be customary international law. However, the hague convention allows many types of military action that would horrify most mnetters and the Geneva conventions have very little to say about how you are actually allowed to wage war. It is the additional protocols that deal most thoroughly with conduct of war. The first protocol deals with international conflict and the second with internal conflict - so there are rules dealing with internal conflict. But many countries, especially the countries most likely to go to war have not signed the first protocol. Some of it is consisted customary law but some is not.

trying

It seems you are a lot more familiar with international law, so I have a question for you (and for all of you experts out there).

As I know Taliban did not have any diplomatic ties with the outside world (apart from Pakistan I guess), would they be treated as a legit government and their troops as 'an army' under GC? Have they (Taliban) actually declared themselves successors of the previous Afghani government and promised to uphold legal framework installed earlier? I am not sure how GC works for cases of regimes that come to power after a succession of earlier fallen ones. I hope I make myself clear.

Actually, trying, you are wrong.

We are talking about the 3rd Geneva Convention relative to treatment of PoWs which the US Signed in 1949 and ratified in 1955.

From the above:

1. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces

But Cote, the Taliban and AQ are not the same thing. Osama was a Saudi living in Pakistan, orchestrating attacks on the US. So protections afforded to Talib fighters do not apply to him.

"If you read the GCs instead of Wikipedia" is a bit snarky, especially when you refer to a bit that's not relevant to a discussion of OBL and AQ. Particularly as you haven't directly quoted from the Conventions, which are large documents.

On the narrow question as to whether GC protections apply to Talib fighters, I refer you back to what I said earlier: the protections are available only to those who "accept and apply the provisions of the Conventions". The Taliban are not that big on treating PoWs in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. I think it's fair to say that the undoubted severe abuse meted out by some US soldiers to some PoWs is as nothing compared to the abuse meted out by Taliban fighters to their prisoners.

Thank you.

Cote, I've now followed the link you provided to your answer to trying and you missed off the crucial qualifier from your quote:
"6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

You missed out all the stuff in italics, and the stuff in bold is highly debatable for the Taliban. (They don't always carry arms openly, either, but that's a side issue compared to how they approach war.)

PoW topic was re Bush's designation of all prisoners following Afghanistan's invasion as "enemy combatants", a category he invented, in order not to give any of the prisoners PoW status. Nobody is saying OBL was PoW for the simple reason that he was never a prisoner but rather shot on sight, by the looks of it.

I have quoted directly from the relevant part of the Geneva Conventions, which you would know if you clicked on the link I provided.

Nowhere in the GC does it say "If a country or organization has ever treated prisoners badly, its citizens or members shall forever be fair game" so history is not relevant. I don't remember the Taliban mistreating any US prisoners during the very short (1 month?) war in Afghanistan.

So read the Geneva Conventions relative to treatment of PoWs. It is not very long and is written very clearly, in simple language, and covers every imaginable case of combatant taken prisoner, even the guy who takes a pistol and runs out the door when he hears the soldiers. It is written thus precisely so that the winning side will not be able to claim it's prisoners are not PoWs.

Its authors clearly could not see that some 50 years in the future, people would be happy with the one-liners they are fed by powerful propaganda machines rather than reading things themselves

Well done for reading at least that paragraph.

The Afghan war lasted several weeks. How exactly during these weeks did the Taliban side not respect the laws and customs of war? Please do tell.

If there was any complaint on this front, don't you think Bush would not have already used it as an irrefutable argument?

Instead, lawyers everywhere have said over and over that prisoners of the Afghan war are PoWs.

For example, here is what the American Bar Association says:

The Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). All four 1949 Conventions apply during times of international armed conflicts between states that are parties to them. Because both the United States and Afghanistan are state parties to the 1949 Conventions and because they are involved in armed conflict, the Conventions bind them. The Conventions also apply where one party to a conflict is not party to them but accepts and applies their provisions. The Conventions construe the term ?armed conflict? broadly; they do not require a formal declaration of war.

Under the Third 1949 Geneva Convention, combatants who fall into enemy hands are presumptively POWs and are entitled to all protections for that legal status. ?Combatants? are members of the armed forces of a recognized party to the conflict (e.g., the United States), including members of its militias and volunteer corps. Members of other militias and volunteer corps, such as the forces of the Northern Alliance, also are combatants if they are under responsible command, bear a fixed distinctive sign, carry their weapons openly, and apply the laws of war. ?Combatants? also includes members of the regular armed forces of an authority not recognized by the enemy, (e.g., the Taliban). The term even extends to current and former members of the armed forces detained by an occupying power. When an issue about individual POW status exists, the Convention specifically provides that all protections of POW status attach until a competent tribunal decides the question. Enemy combatants captured by the U.S. military during Operation Enduring Freedom thus are entitled to POW status and the protections of the Third 1949 Convention.

cote, you can take your patronising "well done for reading that last paragraph" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

As for the rest, my original post stated that OBL was designated an enemy combatant so that the US could take military action against him. You have repeatedly responded by talking about the Taliban's designation as enemy combatants. That needlessly conflates two topics.

Did you really mean to ask how the Taliban do not respect the laws and customs of war? Just stop for a minute, and reconsider that question. I think you've got caught up in the heat of the moment, surely? Here are just a few links that it took me seconds to find. I'm sure there are many many more:
www.rawa.org/h-kill.htm
www.google.co.uk/search?q=taliban+atrocities&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=39HBTei1KIKDhQfA75mrBQ&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=607
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/stories-of-taliban-atrocities-spread-as-villagers-flee-over-the-front-line-616396.html
gulfnews.com/news/world/pakistan/the-village-that-stood-up-to-taliban-atrocities-1.578977

And ironically enough, the US gov't did indeed make this point, your views to the contrary notwithstanding:
articles.cnn.com/2001-11-22/us/ret.wh.taliban.attrocities_1_taliban-osama-london-and-islamabad?_s=PM:US

Incidentally, I find it weird that you keep on saying the Afghan war lasted several weeks. Fighting continue to this very day, with no end in sight! What marks the difference, in your mind?

Cote, I'm sorry but you are wrong. You have quoted an article from the Geneva Convention but you clearly don't understand the context in which it was written or what it meant/means. As I said above, it was a repetition of the 1907 Hague Convention. It referred to what was known as a 'levee en masse' - a spontaneous uprising of the population. It was to cover the period before a proper army could be organised. It was deliberately written to exclude politicised, guerilla type movements or what were known at the time as 'irregular belligerents' - people who waged war outside state militaries. States at the time had a horror of irregular belligerants and took a lot of care to exclude them from protection.

There is no way Al Quaeda or the Taliban fit under the levee en masse. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan they were a state military (Bemybabe, I think they would be considered de facto rulers for the purposes of international law).

If you want to find articles that protect Al Quaeda you need to look at Additional Protocol I. It provides protections for guerillas. It was highly controversial when it was debated and written in the 1970s and it was clear that this protection was a departure from the previous rules of war, as written in the Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention. This was one of the reasons why the US (and most military powers) refused to sign it. You would find it hard (although maybe not impossible) to argue that the US is bound by those articles. Nevertheless, even though the US is probably not bound by them, generally the US does abide by the Additional Protocol.

Now, I know it is not done to flaunt one's qualifications on mn, but this (the distinction between combatant and civilian) is actually the area I research. And now I have probably completely outed myself.

If anyone is interested, all the treaties can be found on the ICRC website. They also have commentary on them and their own database of what they consider to be customary international law. www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

Thank you trying

trying - Are you claiming to know better than American Bar Organization? It sounds like you think you do.

ABA says that people who fought the US during the invasion of Afghanistan are and should be treated as PoWs. Here, I'm quoting it again, from their website:

The Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). All four 1949 Conventions apply during times of international armed conflicts between states that are parties to them. Because both the United States and Afghanistan are state parties to the 1949 Conventions and because they are involved in armed conflict, the Conventions bind them. The Conventions also apply where one party to a conflict is not party to them but accepts and applies their provisions. The Conventions construe the term ?armed conflict? broadly; they do not require a formal declaration of war.

Under the Third 1949 Geneva Convention, combatants who fall into enemy hands are presumptively POWs and are entitled to all protections for that legal status. ?Combatants? are members of the armed forces of a recognized party to the conflict (e.g., the United States), including members of its militias and volunteer corps. Members of other militias and volunteer corps, such as the forces of the Northern Alliance, also are combatants if they are under responsible command, bear a fixed distinctive sign, carry their weapons openly, and apply the laws of war. ?Combatants? also includes members of the regular armed forces of an authority not recognized by the enemy, (e.g., the Taliban). The term even extends to current and former members of the armed forces detained by an occupying power. When an issue about individual POW status exists, the Convention specifically provides that all protections of POW status attach until a competent tribunal decides the question. Enemy combatants captured by the U.S. military during Operation Enduring Freedom thus are entitled to POW status and the protections of the Third 1949 Convention.

He was a nut job, he was evil, he deserved to die and now his rotten corpse is being eaten by crabs at the bottom of the ocean, as for his "soul" well that's going no where no paradise no virgins because that's all a croc of shit

I agree with all you have said. Yes, he deserved it and yes, there is no heaven nor hell.

Irrelevant to what OP was saying, though.

Her point, which I agree with, is that political assassination is not a good thing if you claim higher moral authority and pride yourself on being a country of law and human rights. (Yes, OBL didn't respect law nor human rights on 9/11, but that is irrelevant, as well).

Jeez, Cote, you've done the exact same thing again but this time to trying: you have conflated the Taliban and AQ. Trying said:
"There is no way Al Quaeda or the Taliban fit under the levee en masse. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan they were a state military"
Ie, to the extent that GC PoW provisions apply to the Taliban, it's because they were a state military. Frankly, I do take issue with the ABA on this, despite them all being very clever and eminent lawyers and my not being those things, because the GCs are very clearly all about reciprocal respect for the provisions. As the Taliban did not follow the laws and customs of war or accept and apply the GCs themselves, they lose the protections of the GCs.

Separately from the Taliban issue, AQ don't get the protections of being PoW at all: they are not a state military and they are not a levee en masse. They are to use the archaic phrase, "irregular belligerents". The only protection that could come to them would be as guerillas under the Additional Protocol 1 but the US did not sign it and is not bound by it.

Oh, I notice that in answering other posts but ignoring mine, you've avoided having to answer the question I put to you about whether you really meant to imply that the Taliban abided by the laws and customs of war.