It is an issue that can not be ruled out with a wave of your hand if you believe in the strength of an international law based on the fundamental values of equality before the law and fight against this injustice that is the crime. Also can you answer yes to this point of view of principles. But, as regards the specific case study to examine whether or not in between the horizon of this necessity, he must also have in mind several other parameters: it is a war situation, the event on the field was intense
" Leon E. Panetta, The CIA director, Said The Seal commandos Went Into the Mission With only a 60 percent to 80 percent certainty That In The Bin Ladenwas compound. Mr. Panetta Said The commandos Made The split-second decision'''' to shoot him - The unarmed Qaeda founder Had a rifle Within Reach, a U.S. officials said Wednesday - When They found HIM In His third-floor bedroom.
There Was No Debate Among members forming Seal That whoever shot Bin Laden HAD HAD done The Right Thing.
''It's dark, There's Been a lot of bullets flying around, a lot of bodysuits dropping, your mission Is To capture or kill Bin Laden, Who knowswhat he's got tucked in history shirt?''Said Don Shipley, 49, to form Sealmemberwho Runs Extreme Seal Experience, a private training school inChesapeake, Virginia .
it would appear that bin Laden had had a gun in hand (" Had a rifle Within Reach ") and other sources say that a woman had interposed and was wounded in the leg. In this case the death of bin Laden can only be read in light of the principle. There are indeed interference situation that can not be excluded a backhander under penalty of using a conspiracy theory. One can certainly argue that the elite commando-elite of the elite-(whose training is described in the same article the Herald quoted above ) lost his cool although it is mentioned above that drew in all directions and that the shooter could also draw in the legs.Recognize the lack of composure for someone ultra-driven. Except we're not out of the woods.
For a moment imagine that bin Laden is back safe and sound.Already, it can not be locked in a jail of the ICC in The Hague since not only the Court has no jurisdiction over any crime prior to his creation (1 July 2002) , then the U.S. has not ratified them recognize any jurisdiction of this Court (except as a special tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: ICTY ), as well as the crimes took place first in the U.S., and as they are the USA who were in action, Bin Laden could also be tried there but with the possibility of beingacquitted for lack of evidence directly . Moreover, his living presence would have triggered a pressure such that the number of hostage takings and terrorist attacks would have had the only goal of the issue.
This argument is obviously not legally the same retort, but it is not appropriate nor legally in a state of war the soldier's situation must first see to neutralize the enemy without trying to kill him ; it should not be confused with criminal situation warning shot and the situation of war, except war crime that only apply to civilians, or Bin Laden was not a "civil". Obviously, it is possible to argue here, except that it can be legally charged with "terrorism" which falls under the jurisdiction of an enhanced making it more open military intervention type.
Ideally, therefore, bin Laden should have been taken alive and brought to the attention of the ICC, at least assuming a retroactive for crimes against humanity. Except that there is no international police force, so the country most concerned has ample opportunity to comply or not this ideal, this is really the problem. Because if there was an international police force, Al Quaeda could not speak today of "reprisals" (which is a shame for that matter) as it would have before her the world. However, it is not enough to argue that the U.S. and Israel do not want, since neither China nor Russia will recognize the Court. Actually it is quite the problem since there are also China and Russia that prevent condemn Syria , and are choosy about Libya. In any case, until there is not a major overhaul of the UN with strengthening democratic values for entry criteria, the international police will not exist. Because it is what it is and not the existence of a hypothetical (and dangerous) world government.
