Comments on: Assassinating terrorist leaders: A matter of international law http://blog.oup.com/2011/05/osama-assassination/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Fri, 24 May 2013 14:13:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: N Coghlan http://blog.oup.com/2011/05/osama-assassination/#comment-312581 N Coghlan Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:48:18 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=16252#comment-312581 This article is deeply flawed in two respects. First, it is circular: it says the prohibition against assassination is not absolute but rather has justification in 'residual circumstances'. Yet the rest of the article makes very clear this is not the case: it is arguing that there *should* be such a residual exception, for reasons such as necessity, *not* that such a residual power is already recognised. If the author wishes to argue for this, that is fine, but it is dishonest to portray this as a settled and accepted conclusion. Second, and more fundamentally, its entire argument hangs on the false premise that the only way to punish OBL was assassination. Yet this was not, according to American authorities, the intention of the operation: it was to kidnap him to have him face justice by trial. Former General McChrystal's speech to the Cambridge Union, available online, underlines this: he says whilst he was not personally involved, the murder of anyone in cold blood is illegal under international law, so their orders must have been to arrest him if possible. Whether the US really believed this is immaterial: the pretence of a legitimate operation to arrest him completely undermines this suggestion that assassination was the only way to bring him to justice. This article approaches the Alan Dershowitz level of respected academics twisting and torturing the clear meaning of international law to serve transparent apologist agendas. This article is deeply flawed in two respects. First, it is circular: it says the prohibition against assassination is not absolute but rather has justification in ‘residual circumstances’. Yet the rest of the article makes very clear this is not the case: it is arguing that there *should* be such a residual exception, for reasons such as necessity, *not* that such a residual power is already recognised. If the author wishes to argue for this, that is fine, but it is dishonest to portray this as a settled and accepted conclusion.

Second, and more fundamentally, its entire argument hangs on the false premise that the only way to punish OBL was assassination. Yet this was not, according to American authorities, the intention of the operation: it was to kidnap him to have him face justice by trial. Former General McChrystal’s speech to the Cambridge Union, available online, underlines this: he says whilst he was not personally involved, the murder of anyone in cold blood is illegal under international law, so their orders must have been to arrest him if possible. Whether the US really believed this is immaterial: the pretence of a legitimate operation to arrest him completely undermines this suggestion that assassination was the only way to bring him to justice.

This article approaches the Alan Dershowitz level of respected academics twisting and torturing the clear meaning of international law to serve transparent apologist agendas.

]]> By: A. Benway http://blog.oup.com/2011/05/osama-assassination/#comment-221450 A. Benway Tue, 17 May 2011 19:18:28 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=16252#comment-221450 The OBL hit does not stand alone, but as part of an ongoing official policy of murder by various means and over a long period. With an open and public policy of murder being bragged about and the hit-men being given medals for especially fine rub-out jobs, some might say that the author is being somewhat disingenuous. A few might even go so far as to opine that by this policy, as seen in the over-all sense, the Anglo-American junta has repudiated the Peace of Westphalia and thus brought the States, the World, to the status quo ante ie 1647, wherein the default international condition was war. The OBL hit does not stand alone, but as part of an ongoing official policy of murder by various means and over a long period. With an open and public policy of murder being bragged about and the hit-men being given medals for especially fine rub-out jobs, some might say that the author is being somewhat disingenuous. A few might even go so far as to opine that by this policy, as seen in the over-all sense, the Anglo-American junta has repudiated the Peace of Westphalia and thus brought the States, the World, to the status quo ante ie 1647, wherein the default international condition was war.

]]> By: OUPblog » Blog Archive » Osama’s dead. Now what? http://blog.oup.com/2011/05/osama-assassination/#comment-221019 OUPblog » Blog Archive » Osama’s dead. Now what? Mon, 09 May 2011 16:17:02 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=16252#comment-221019 [...] The killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad is a major psychological blow to al Qaeda, who lost a charismatic leader, viewed by both his supporters and his enemies as the true symbol of global terrorism and militancy. For many around the world it is a victory in the war against extremist violence which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. [...] [...] The killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad is a major psychological blow to al Qaeda, who lost a charismatic leader, viewed by both his supporters and his enemies as the true symbol of global terrorism and militancy. For many around the world it is a victory in the war against extremist violence which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. [...]

]]>