Order to Kill Was Legitimate According to U.S. Law

.

A legitimate U.S.  action, not to the letter of International Law

The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing’s legality. Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.

Prof Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, said the attack had the appearance of an “extrajudicial killing without due process of the law”.

The prominent defence lawyer Michael Mansfield QC expressed similar doubts about whether sufficient efforts had been made to capture Bin Laden. “The serious risk is that in the absence of an authoritative narrative of events played out in Abbottabad, vengeance will become synonymised with justice, and that revenge will supplant ‘due process’.

Geert-Jan  Knoops
The U.S. Supreme Court has made a judgement about the legality of the state of war with Al Qaeda and terror groups and the status of enemy combatants.The order to kill is legitimate according to United States Law and justified, it does not comply to the letter of International Law. Many other instances of the death penalty in the U.S. are also qualified as illigitimate according to International Agreements on Human Rights and International Law. The State of Texas as one example does not do justice by the death penalty to minors and foreign nationals and violates thereby International Law.

Geert-Jan  Knoops is an authority on International Law
Legal advisor to Iraqi lawyers in proces against Saddam Hussein

In the United States, there have been earlier arguments and discussions to kill an American citizen abroad involved in terrorism against the United States: Obama Administration Claims Right to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism

The Presumption of Guilt:
The Unlawful Enemy Combatant and the U.S. War on Terror  

US: Bin Laden – a license to kill?

There has been little international condemnation of reports that Al-Qaeda’s leader Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US forces in Pakistan. But there are questions as to whether such an extrajudicial killing is allowed under international law.  

(RNW) – The US State Department had offered a reward of up to $25 million for “information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction” of Bin Laden – but is that a license to kill?

The US legal framework on the war on terror is unclear. While the US government does not condone extrajudicial killings, the US maintains that senior members of Al-Qaeda are “enemy combatants”. As the laws of war only cover killings of combatants by combatants – does the term “enemy combatants” in modern warfare mean a blanket privilege to commit violence in the name of counter-terrorism?

International law
Dutch Professor of International Law, Geert-Jan Knoops said that legally the news of the killing of Bin Laden is particularly interesting, as international law does not permit the killing of an opponent. “Under international law, he must be arrested and handed over to the US to stand trial.

The US regards itself as being in a state of war against terror and therefore as having the right to eliminate its enemies on the battlefield,” said Knoops. “But the laws of war do not permit this sort of action. Naturally, no court in the world will tick off the Americans for this. What’s remarkable is that Obama justifies this killing – while he said earlier that he aims to restore law in the US,” he added.  

Dutch lawyer advises Obama on Guantanamo problem

(RNW) – A US court should try the Guantánamo Bay prisoners under specialised, non-military law. That is the advice of Dutch lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops to US president Barack Obama. His blueprint is already on the desk on Obama’s advisors at the White House.

Geert-Jan Knoops is no stranger to the controversial trials held at Guantánamo Bay. He was an advisor in the case against Osama Bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. His advice then, in June 2006, led to the ruling by a federal court that the Guantánamo trials were unlawful.

Blueprint
President Obama is in search of a legitimate way to close the detention centre in Cuba. Knoops took the initiative and came to help. He thinks Europeans have too long been criticising the Americans, instead of providing a roadmap to help them. Knoops recently sent his recommendations to the American Embassy in The Hague.

Although the closure of Guantánamo is easier said than done, Knoop’s advice might lead to the release of some 190 “alleged terrorists” who were held illegally for years. Only 60 are allegeable for a criminal case. For the rest there is insufficient (i.e. obtained by torture) or no evidence.

Knoops’ advice is simple, but clear. “The fight against terrorism is a criminal law issue, not of the law on war,” says Knoops. Cases should be brought back to criminal law model, instead of being tried by a military court.  

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."