Osama bin Laden's Death: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Osama bin Laden's Death (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 1. August 2013, 21:24 Uhr

437 Bytes hinzugefügt , 21:24, 1. Aug. 2013

→‎Legal Justifications

Tiao

Bürokraten, Administratoren

31.738

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 33: / Zeile 33: @@
 == Legal Justifications ==
-Political representatives are bound by the laws of their lands, and that is what they are being sworn into at the beginning of their office. Hence, they should identify "justice" with "conforming to the rule of law"; but was the killing a legally sound affair?
-*Self-defense. There was no immiment threat by bin Laden to those who broke into his compound at Abottabad at night. This excludes the possibility of self-defense as a justification of the killing.
+Political leaders all over the world have an oath of office binding them to the laws of the land - and, directly or indirectly, to international law. Therefore, the primary legitimation of officially ordered killings should be a legal one.
-*The laws of war. In their article "Has 'Justice been done'? The legality of bin Laden's killing under international law" (Israel Law Review 45, 2012: 341-366) Kai Ambos and Josef Alkatouta argue that the killing does not benefit from the rules of war, since
+=== Law of Peace ===
+*Was it self-defense? There was no immiment threat by bin Laden to those who broke into his home. Much to the contrary: the soldiers were the intruders and if bin Laden as owner had defended his house against the intruders and had killed one or more of them, he would have had a better case going for him than George Zimmerman had against Trayvon Martin.
+*Was it a lawful penal execution? Certainly not. There had been no verdict, no accusation, no trial, no judge, no defense, there had been nothing but an organized killing on foreign grounds - without the foreign government having been asked for consent nor even informed.
+=== Law of War ===
+*In their article "Has 'Justice been done'? The legality of bin Laden's killing under international law" (Israel Law Review 45, 2012: 341-366) Kai Ambos and Josef Alkatouta argue that the killing does not benefit from the rules of war, since
 **the killed person had not - at the given time - taken part in hostilities and that the killing, therefore, was an unlawful one. Extralegal executions are punishable as homicides.
@@ Zeile 1.155: / Zeile 1.161: @@
 (S/PRST/2011/9) is questionable: ‘The Security Council welcomes the news on 1 May 2011 that Osama bin
 Laden will never again be able to perpetrate such acts of terrorism’.
 == Higher Justice? ==