Was The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden Strictly Legal?
Seriously, who cares? The USA killed an arch-terrorist. Whether the bastard was armed or even fighting back doesn't really matter.
We would have been happy if the Navy Seals had found him peacefully sleeping in his bed... and still shot him in the eye.
Some lawyers and human rights activists seem to have their priorities askew:
Like Mr Ferencz, British law professor Philippe Sands QC, of University College London says it is impossible to make a definitive legal judgement without knowing precisely what happened. But he says the case for the raid's legality has been weakened.
"The question to ask is: were the measures taken in the actual situation that pertained reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances in which the [Navy Seals] found themselves?" he told the BBC.
Of course not. A proportionate(ly psychotic) response would have been to fly planes into the tallest buildings in the city center of Islamabad or Karachi. Forget Osama -- a proportionate response would involve the "targeted killing" of thousands of innocent civilians.
Of course, that's not what the USA did. It went after the Taliban for giving the terror chief safe haven. And finally, it bagged the villain directly.
And that's the difference between us and our enemies.
Jonathon Narvey is the Editor of The Propagandist