As far as I am aware you are an American. As an American you value your sovereignty just as I, as a Brit, value our sovereignty and just as anyone else from any other country value theirs.
OK so far?
Right. So can we agree that sovereignty is sacrosanct and that to ignore another nation’s sovereignty by illegaly entering their country is tantamount to invasion and is illegal. I doubt that even you could disagree with that. Good.
So, by entering Pakistan, unannounced, with no prior or current permission you were acting illegally.
Next point. What proof did your people have that the man they were sent to kill, (yes they were) actually was Osama bin Laden? Did they request proof? Fingerprint? No. They killed an unarmed, elderly man with a beard who might or might not, at the time, have been Osama bin Laden.
Susequent DNA checks proved their case, but upon entering a foreign country they had no proof. They were on a murder mission.
So you (your nation) broke the international law.
Keep reading, dear boy.
I am not saddened by the fact that OBL is no more, indeed I celebrated the event like most sane people (not as the yanks did… but there are few sane there).
There are two things to be resolved.
1. America broke the law on several counts and should be made to answer for that.
2. America killed Osama bin Laden and they should be applauded for that.
So when I see and hear gung ho brain deads like your goodself, Trix, my view of your nation takes yet another step down into the abyss of violence and arrogance where once there was a hill of rightful pride.
It is, without a doubt, the duty of all good Americans, indeed all good people, to ensure that people like you do not prosper so that America can once more be worthy of its name (ref Mr. Ap Meryck)
Interesting read
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05967
"The US Attorney-General has told the BBC that bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered, but that the protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was uppermost in their minds.51
The US has had a criminal case open against bin Laden since the Manhattan Federal District Court’s June 1998 indictment. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, this indictment related to a plan the CIA had at one stage to capture bin Laden and turn him over for trial, either in the US or in an Arab country.52 A US Presidential Decision Directive, PDD-39, from June 1995, stated that “When terrorists wanted for violation of U.S. law are at large overseas, their return for prosecution shall be a matter of the highest priority.” If extradition procedures were unavailable or put aside, the United States could seek the local country’s assistance in a rendition, secretly putting the fugitive in a plane back to America or some third country for trial.53
8
Some possible implications
Many of the questions around bin Laden’s killing may only be resolved if the US releases the instructions given to the US Navy Seals and clarifies what efforts were made in the course of the military operation to force bin Laden to surrender and to assess the threat he posed at that particular moment.
But even without these answers, the killing could have significant implications for future policies on al-Qaeda as well as Libya and other countries.
The nature of bin Laden’s killing may be a sign that the US is increasingly likely to kill rather than to capture al-Qaeda members. If so, this may stem from the current administration’s reluctance to send new inmates to Guantanamo Bay, and the negative experience of attempting a criminal trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted being the architect of the September 11 attacks.54
There may be implications too for the situation in Libya. Some of the arguments used to present bin Laden’s killing as lawful could also be applied if coalition forces kill Colonel Gaddafi. General Sir David Richards, the UK’s Chief of Defence Staff, has reportedly said that the killing of Osama bin Laden should serve as a warning to Gaddafi.55
A wider implication is that the killing may be seen as a precedent for targeted killings of individuals by any state, across international boundaries, at least where terrorism is involved. The US is not the only state to have used force against a non-state actor in another sovereign state, in the context of the fight against terrorism: Israel, Turkey and Colombia have also done so, without the consent of the other state or authorisation by the UN Security Council.56 The more states act in this way, the more likely it is to become accepted, at least politically if not as a matter of international law. "
See the PDF
I am interested to note that the British government's House of Commons Library, in an internal report for MPs written by parliamentary staff, analysing the legal arguments surrounding the action and its repercussions, has come to much the same conclusion as Lowaicue has. In the report the HOCL notes that Bin Laden's death may set a precedent for 'targeted killings' by states in the future.
In other words, the USA is seen, even amongst its allies, to have acted in a manner which grants legitimacy to such political assassination as seen in previous actions by Russia and China, actions which the United States has traditionally attempted to distance itself from.
