...is exemplified by letting lawyers run wars..

Hate to break it to the hairsplitting twit who wrote the above piece, but justice and legality are not synonymous, and, though lawyers would like to think otherwise, justice TRUMPS legality.

Furthermore, killing Bin Laden, Zawahiri or any of their henchmen is public justice, even if carried out by a private individual. Bin Laden is wanted dead or alive, PERIOD.

"if a CIA drone pilot had bin Laden in his sights, it's unlikely that his first call would be to a lawyer"

That's because a lawyer would already be there. Lawyers oversee all drone strikes (and nearly everything that goes on in the military) and there's good reason for it, even though it's not always desirable and sometimes frustrating.

If a private citizen manages to kill Osama bin Laden he will be treated as a hero. I bet if the guy managed to videotape a professional execution of OBL, and send it to the media, he will definitely make some royalties off of it, hehe. If the government tried to prosecute this lone individual, there are most likely going to be riots in the streets. I'd really like to be the lone American who killed OBL and then escape back to the safety of the US. Because I know that I'm getting laid when I go back stateside!

Not to be a stick in the mud Mr. Keating, but even according to your own link on Letters of Marquis, the last letter was given in the 1940s to the Goodyear blimp to hunt submarines, and not 1812 as you state.. See Shock, James R., Smith, David R., The Goodyear Airships, Bloomington, Illinois, Airship International Press, 2002, pg. 43, ISBN 0-9711637-0-7

The United States has jurisdiction to prosecute any US CITIZEN for violating any US crime abroad.

The analysis that some kind of human rights issue would need to be involved is incorrect.

The bigger issue is that simple murder is not a federal offense; the commerce clause leaves criminalizing murder up to the states.

However, without checking the statutes, it is probably a federal offense to cross state lines to commit murder.

Not that anyone would dare to prosecute this guy if he was successful; although he would have shamed two administrations and destroyed THE symbolic rationalizations for at this point beyond hopeless misadventure in Afganistan.

Osama's name and his acts are always remembered as weapon of mass destruction for killing Muslim force.
This name is responsible of destruction of infrastructure of Afghanistan by giving birth the ideas of Talibans and talibanisation in the region.
His name is used since the start of war on terror as an hunting mission.Three Muslim countries have been indulged into war where local army is killing the local or vice verse but world modern armies couldnt trace him so far by spreading their war mission .
So seeing his clear support for US mission , it is obvious his death would be announced in illegal way to cover the whole story.

An interesting g post. As said " Faulkner probably couldn't be charged with murder if he killed bin Laden and then returned to the United States, since the murder would have happened abroad where U.S. courts have no say. "Universal jurisdiction" for crimes against current sports news humanity is an increasingly popular notion in human rights law, and one that's been gaining some traction in the United States"

This is a very intricate question that asks for a very analytic thinking on part of a rational being.After all what is a state? It is a institution that claims monopoly of legitimate use of force or coercion.And every state and specifically democratic state is binded by social contract to its citizen.. Social contract in turn guareentes liberty of life and property to its citizen which is the bounden duty of every state.
But in osama s case,the state has come virtually to its knees in effort of relieving its people out of this radical and dangerous element.Hence it would not be surprising if an indivgidual out of fear for his and family life is provoked within to take the law in hand.Obviously such act of his can be proved alligned with NO HARM PRINCIPLE OF JOHN STUART MILL.....
I SHALL EXPLAIN IT LATER...IF ASKED.......

Are they any less responsible for killing of many-many innocent civilians? No. Any war leader should be killed. No Afghan life is worth less than American.

From my reading of international politics, any assassination of Bin Laden would be regretted by far more people than would cheer. Whatever that has to do with the underlying political situation; not much, I guess.

I think that every person, regardless of their acts deserve the right to a trial and that law must be applied jucarii. If all of us will start making justice by our own what will come to this world.

KILLING OF OSAMA CAN BE JUSTIFIED USING MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSO
This is a very intricate question that asks for a very analytic thinking on part of a rational being.After all what is a state? It is a institution that claims monopoly of legitimate use of force or coercion.And every state and specifically democratic state is binded by social contract to its citizen.. Social contract in turn guareentes liberty of life and property to its citizen which is the bounden duty of every state.
But in osama s case,the state has come virtually to its knees in effort of relieving its people out of this radical and dangerous element.Hence it would not be surprising if an indivgidual out of fear for his and family life is provoked within to take the law in hand.Obviously such act of his can be proved alligned with NO HARM PRINCIPLE OF JOHN STUART MILL.....
I SHALL EXPLAIN IT LATER...IF ASKED.......
desentupidora
informatica

i think he already is died sikis sex

It is a very interesting topic and I congratulate the person whose brain child is it. I think there should be good rational debate on this point. It never occurred to me this point. Carry on with the discussion.
God bless
Dr. O. P. Sudrania

nice articel

very nice articel good work

visits free-send.de