Issue 265, Friday 27 May 2011 - 23 Jumad al-Akhar 1432
Legality of Bin Ladin killing drowned out by US euphoria
This month the US boasted about killing Usama
Bin Ladin at a compound in Pakistan more than
nine years after the start of the war in
Afghanistan. Like many others, Prime
Minister, David Cameron, and Labour Leader,
Ed Miliband, both said that his demise had
made the world a safer place and it was a
significant step in the fight against global
terrorism. But behind the euphoria, little
was discussed about legality of the extra-
judicial assassination.
Although details of the execution put out by
the White House were sketchy and often
contradictory, the US attempts to justify
targeted killing during an armed conflict as
the lawful right to use force “consistent
with its inherent right to self-defence”
under international law in response to the
9/11 attacks. But the UK position is less
clear. When asked in Parliament whether the
assassination was carried out within the
confines of a proper legal authority in
international law, Cameron said: “It was a US
operation with US troops, so it is entirely a
matter for that country.”
Yet extra-judicial killings are nothing new.
They were practised by European powers in the
colonial era and the US and the Soviet Union
during the cold war. The biggest culprit in
recent years has been Israel, which has
carried out targeted assassinations for more
than three decades. The most recent case was
the killing by Mossad agents of a Hamas
leader in Dubai last year, when it provoked
most concern not about its legality but
because Israeli agents were caught using
passports from European countries, including
the UK and Ireland. Like the US, Israel
asserts it is a legitimate form of self-
defence against terrorists.
Critics of targeted assassinations view them
as incompatible with international law, which
prohibits extrajudicial killings that lack
due process. The case of Israel’s killing of
Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in
2004 provoked international condemnation,
including from the then UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan and British Foreign Secretary,
Jack Straw.
Several international lawyers have already
questioned the legality of the US targeted
assassination of Bin Ladin, which was carried
out in the mission under orders to kill,
rather than capture, even when he was found
to be unarmed.
The reaction by Amnesty International has so
far only been to ask the US and Pakistan to
clarify aspects of the operation in
Abbottabad. It specifically requested
information on the status and whereabouts of
those who were with Bin Ladin and the
circumstances of his killing. “US forces
should have attempted to capture Usama bin
Ladin alive in order to bring him to trial if
he was unarmed and posing no immediate
threat,” said Amnesty senior Director,
Claudio Cordone. Bin Ladin’s sons have also
questioned the legality, suggesting that he
should have been arrested, citing the
examples of former Iraqi President, Saddam
Hussein, and Serbian President, Slobodan
Milosevic.
A further worrying aspect comes from a report
by the House of Commons library, prepared for
MPs that suggested the assassination may come
to be seen as a precedent for “targeted
killings” by states in the future. Bin
Ladin’s killing has “significant
implications” for how the US and other
countries deal with terrorist suspects and
such methods could be seen to be “accepted
politically”, it argues.
It can be said increasing use of attacks made
by unmanned aerial vehicles (known as drones)
in places like Pakistan and Libya are a
further development in targeted killing
without officially being at war.
The world after
Usama: the ‘dim’ prospects for sanity?
Usama Bin Ladin
executed by the US
What’s in a name?
|