International law and Bin Laden’s death

The New Neo Posted on by

Now comes Thomas Darnsté¤dt in Spiegel with the predictable European take on Bin Laden’s death, which is that it was most likely an illegal violation of international law:

Claus Kress, an international law professor at the University of Cologne, argues that achieving retributive justice for crimes, difficult as that may be, is “not achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial.” Kress says the normal way of handling a man who is sought globally for commissioning murder would be to arrest him, put him on trial and ultimately convict him.

And on and on it goes in similar vein to explain why Osama should not have been killed but instead tried in a court of international law: Bin Laden may not even have been an operational leader of al Qaeda anymore; it’s “questionable whether the USA can still claim to be engaged in an armed conflict” with al Qaeda anyway; it’s not certain what “theater of operations” this was part of; and a sovereign state (Pakistan) had its territory infringed.

So much blather. If the law is an ass, then international law is one of the biggest asses of all, unless confined to the very specific situation of two parties who have agreed to submit to it.

International law is a toothless, irrelevant, and sometimes counterproductive and destructive tiger with no force whatsoever except by that consent. As I wrote some time ago:

To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.

And consider this (in which I’ve substituted “Osama” for “Saddam” and “Spiegel” for “the Guardian” in the original):

[Spiegel], along with much of Europe, doesn’t seem to know what to do with outlaws. [Osama] was an outlaw from international law. It’s as though Europe thinks of the world as a sort of tea party, and that anyone knocking on the door and wanting to come in would quite naturally play by tea-party rules: pick up a cuppa, grab a cucumber sandwich, sit down and chat a while.

But it’s no tea party, it’s an armed world of high-stakes power struggles, with vicious and tyrannical killers such as [Osama]…Then the European tea party breaks down, and the lawmen have to be armed. And sometimes outlaws have to be taken out…

Kenneth Anderson has this to say at the law blog Volokh:

International law is grounded in the practice of states, and the practice of some states matters more than others. One might think that wicked or unjust or what have you, but if one wants international law to be something more than law professor fantasies, it has to be grounded in how states behave. International law can get a little bit ahead of where states want to go, but not very far ahead…

But the US government’s pragmatic view ”” long at the center of State Department legal approaches, including the one that authorized the killing of Bin Laden as a lawful attack against a lawful target in an armed conflict ”” is best seen as protecting this important, but fragile, category called international law … from itself. From its most enthusiastic supporters, who are always willing to purify it into a form of law suitable only for uninhabited planets or maybe heaven.

Terrorists such as Bin Laden inhabit (or, in his case, used to inhabit) this earth. So does the United States. And on this earth, when private citizens declare war on a country and its private citizens, and murder nearly 3,000 unarmed people in cold blood for political reasons, those perpetrators can be considered fair game for as long as they live, wherever they hide out, and however long it takes.

That may not be international law, but as even President Obama said, it’s justice.

[ADDENDUM: Victor Davis Hanson on the subject (hat tip: commenter Bill West).]

On reaching dental senility

The New Neo Posted on by

I have reached a certain dental age, the point at which every visit to the dentist seems to elicit some bad news. Even something as innocuous as a tooth-cleaning—which I had the other day—sparks a pronouncement that more work is needed, and the job always seems good for that dental minimum, the thousand dollar bill.

This time the offender was an old filling, a relic of my wild pre-flouride youth and a typical amount of candy. I emerged from adolescence sporting a set of choppers liberally sprinkled with gleaming metal, but now the last vestiges of those original fillings are going quickly, to be replaced by a set of expensive crowns and something called onlays.

Why? Subject to the forces of toothgrinding and just normal eating for all these years, their integrity further undermined by those massive fillings, many of my molars have decided to crack under the pressure. Literally. Cracks hurt; they drive you to the dentist, and the grief the fissures have given you makes you willing to pay any price to get it over with and stop hurting.

But this latest drama was not a crack, it was the erosion of an old filling that led to some sort of pre-infection state and the need for a redo. By this time, so many of my teeth have been fixed and re-fixed that the whole thing is looking mighty spiffy, virtually the only part of me that has grown more attractive with age.

At my dentist’s office, there’s now a full-time person there whose entire job appears to be discussing your bill and how you “wish” to pay for it. I don’t have dental insurance, but from what I hear, insurance pays only a pittance (if that) for most procedures anyway. I was joking with this lady that, by the time I depart this earth, my teeth will have finally reached near-perfection. She assured me that, in the case of teeth, it’s a good deal—you can take it (or rather, them) with you.

Has Obama already won in 2012?

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems an absurd title for a post—of course he hasn’t won. The election’s a year and a half away.

And yet I’ve been astounded at the number of people who say the election’s already over. From The View to the comments section of a gazillion blogs, the consensus from many is that, with the end of Bin Laden, Obama has it all sewed up.

Do they really believe this, or is it just trash talk chest-thumping propaganda? I don’t know; perhaps a bit of both. But I have to say it puzzles me even as a concept.

It may be that I give people too much credit for actual thought. But I can’t imagine that most Americans will experience much more than a sigh of relief and a swell of pride at the news, and a feeling that Obama got it right this time. But anyone who reads what happened—and thinks about it for more than a superficial fleeting moment—must know that this was the culmination of years of hard effort by both administrations, but most especially by the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community, and then the Navy Seals.

There’s little question that much of the information was gleaned through policies of the Bush administration towards the capture of terrorists and their interrogation, policies that Obama and most Democrats did their very best to undermine and negate. There’s also little doubt that the Navy Seals are an extraordinary bunch of men, both in their training and in their execution of the mission. There’s also the fact that Obama had the guts and brains to make a good call in ordering them in and then getting out of their way so they could do the job. And perhaps there was an element of good luck as well.

How this information—accessible to anyone who takes a moment or two to read about it and reflect on it even at the most basic level—translates into a sure win for Obama is beyond me. The incident doesn’t even begin to negate several years of destructive foreign and domestic policy, nor stupidity on the very relevant question of how to treat terrorists. Plus, on a very practical level, there’s an awful lot of time before November of 2012, and you can rest assured that a quite a few things will happen in the interim that will make Osama Bin Laden’s death but a distant memory.

But don’t get me wrong; I’ve never thought Obama was a pushover in 2012. Even before the Bin Laden killing, it was a strong possibility that Obama would win a second term. It all depends on the events of the next year and a half, and who the Republicans choose to run against him.

And it better not be Donald Trump.

Killing Osama

The New Neo Posted on by

Fragmentary information is slowly emerging about the Navy Seal operation that got Osama Bin Laden. It should be fascinating to learn more. The tale—if ever learned in its entirety, which I doubt will occur for security reasons—would no doubt rival scenes from any action movie.

I try to imagine the mindset of those who set off on this mission. They have so much more courage than I that it’s hard to channel, even imaginatively, what they must have thought and felt. Their coolness and steely determination, and their willingness to die in such an endeavor if need be, is both awesome and necessary. I think of Orwell’s (possibly misattributed) words: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

One of the nuggets of information revealed so far is that tracking the doings of an al Qaeda courier led the Seals to their prize, and that the information that led to identifying the courier’s was gleaned many years ago from questioning of a Guantanamo prisoner. Just another argument in favor of what went on at Guantanamo and its usefulness to us:

One courier in particular had our constant attention,’ one official said.

The hunt was frustrated because detainees could only give his nickname and ‘nom de guerre.’ He was a protege of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States now in custody at Guantanamo Bay prison.

It wasn’t until four years ago that the CIA, working with other US intelligence organizations, uncovered the courier’s identity. It took another two years of ‘persistent effort’ to find the general area where the courier and a brother operated in Pakistan.

‘Still, we were unable to pinpoint exactly where they lived, due to extensive operational security on their part,’ an official said.

In August 2010, they finally found the compound where the brothers lived – a million-dollar, well-fortified mansion in an affluent area where retired Pakistan military officers lived…

It was about eight times larger than other homes in the area, with 4-to-6 metre high walls topped with barbed wire.

Then there were the give-aways: the residents of the compound burnt their refuse, unlike their neighbours who put it out for collection. There were few outside windows. And it had no telephone or internet connections.

Intelligence analysts learned there was a third family living there, in addition to the families of the courier and his brother. The best assessment was that it was ‘most likely’ bin Laden, with several family members, including his youngest wife.

As confidence mounted, Obama finally gave the signal – after chairing five national security meetings, the last of them on Friday – to raid the compound.

Early Sunday, in the ‘early morning hours in Pakistan,’ the assault force moved on its target.

The raid itself was a cliffhanger, being carried out inside Pakistan by US operatives – possibly including CIA agents, but that was not specified by the official – in a civilian neighbourhood on a highly fortified compound, making it an ‘especially dangerous operation.’

The team used two helicopters to get to the compound, where they spent ‘under 40 minutes’ and avoided contact with local Pakistani authorities.

Bin Laden ‘did resist the assault force’ and ‘he was killed in a firefight,’ an official said.

In addition to bin Laden, four others were killed. Three men who were believed to be the brothers and an adult son of bin Laden’s – and a woman who ‘was used as a shield by a male combatant.’ Two other women were injured, officials said.

The meaning of Bin Laden’s death

The New Neo Posted on by

Bin Laden’s death, real as it is, is basically symbolic. Its message is that the US will not relent in its pursuit of those who would perpetrate terrorism against its citizens. Unfortunately, that message has been negated and attenuated by many competing and/or opposing ones over the years that indicate the US is lacking in that same resolve.

Reaction seems more muted than it would have been had this happened years ago. Far too much has transpired since, and Bin Laden himself had kept such a low profile that it seemed he was nearly dead already (or mostly dead, a la “The Princess Bride”).

Who were the people celebrating last night in Times Square and in front of the White House? They looked very young, and if you do the math they were probably only children at the time of the 9/11 attack. It seemed like a sports crowd after a Superbowl victory. Perhaps they were just happy that we finally can declare a win.

I can’t recall another time when America celebrated the death of a single person, even a vicious enemy. Comparisons have been made with the death of Hitler, but there’s really no comparison whatsoever. Hitler’s death was overshadowed by a much larger simultaneous event: the end of the European theater of WWII.

Intentional killer of innocents though Bin Laden was, his murder toll was miniscule compared to that of the German leader. What’s more, Hitler was a suicide. He killed himself because Germany had been soundly defeated in a lengthy and total war; the Nazis weren’t defeated because he killed himself. And unlike the case with Islamic terrorism, Nazism was not embedded in a larger philosophy or belief system that has a life of its own.

There is one similarity to the fate of the Reich’s leaders, however: their burial. Although—unlike Bin Laden—they were tried in the military tribunals known as the Nuremberg trials, and those who were sentenced to death were executed and their bodies cremated, their ashes were dumped in the Isar River in Munich. The Allies were cognizant of the fact that an actual gravesite would provide a shrine for followers, and they were determined that nothing of the sort would happen. Thus, the water burial. No doubt the same reasoning has dictated Bin Laden’s burial at sea.

Osama Bin Laden: dead

The New Neo Posted on by

When I first saw the news I did a double or even a triple take.

Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t he already dead? Or at least, hardly a presence in the world at all? Sort of like killing a ghost.

His death seems to have involved complex intelligence and an as-yet-undisclosed method of assassination. It supposedly occurred about a week ago, and the delay in the announcement was in order to identify the body, which is in US hands.

In the first couple of years after 9/11, there were so many false alarms about Bin Laden’s death that after a while most of us became skeptical that it would ever occur. But that day has come. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

How much did Bin Laden continue to matter to al Qaeda and other terrorists? I have no idea, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if future attacks are claimed to be in retaliation for his death.

[NOTE: One more thing—it’s a good thing he wasn’t captured and tried in a civilian court.]

[ADDENDUM: Obama’s speech was fine.

He seemed to be saying that the operation occurred earlier today rather than a week ago.

Bin Laden was apparently shot in the head.

It will be fascinating to learn the details of the operation. Just heard it was a helicopter and Navy Seals, and lasted about 40 minutes.]

[ADDENDUM II: Remember, also, that al Qaeda was responsible not only for 9/11, but for the Cole bombing and the East African embassy attacks.]

Qaddafi’s youngest son and three grandchildren killed by NATO blast

The New Neo Posted on by

Do you care?

I do. Here’s the reason why:

And when bunkers get hit the occupants perish without distinction. The truth is that the families of enemy leaders die during a time of war. It is often unavoidable. But therein lies the difficulty of current Libyan operation. There is ostensibly no campaign for regime change; no enemy; there is not even a war on; not even a reference to Congress. But at the same time the armed forces of the NATO countries are being asked to achieve what amounts to war aims without either legal cover of belligerence nor the resources customarily allotted to it. They have to look for knockout blow on the cheap, not in the name of victory, but in the name of humanitarian action of all things.

This sets up a mismatch between means and consequences. The disadvantage of “kinetic military action” in the service of R2P is that it has all the consequences and gore of what used to be called war without the strategic clarity or protections of process. What happens if the Duck strikes back at the families of Western leaders? Is that an act of war? Or is that so yesterday?

This is the most muddled, confused “war” I can recall. What are its goals? What is success? When will it end? And of course, that ago-old question, who are the rebels?

But whatever the answers, I have the distinct impression that Qaddafi will live to fight another day as the head of Libya. And if I were he, I just might go back into the terrorism business. Wouldn’t you?

My smart phone has outsmarted me

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve had a smart phone for about a month.

I have no doubt it’s highly intelligent. It can get online in an instant, locate me in time and space much better than I can, and tell me what restaurants are nearby (even what Indian or mideastern restaurants are nearby, if I choose to get particular).

Phoning is the least of what it does. In fact, I doubt I’ve tapped into 1/100th of its nearly boundless potential, and probably never will.

I use one of the ringtones the phone has thoughtfully provided. I haven’t added any apps (I’m not sure I totally understand what an app is). I don’t text. I took a few photos and videos but have yet to figure out how to upload them to my computer. And my fat fingers (they’re not really fat, but they lack the fine motor finesse that the young have perfected through countless hours of practicing almost from birth) seem to stumble around and set off strange commands that cause the phone to go to unknown pages or to perform arcane and unwanted tasks.

It’s not just my fingers that seem to have a mind of their own when interfacing with my brilliant phone. It’s the phone itself that makes decisions on its own. It appears to be a chatty sort—and a morning person—because every now and then it decides to call up an acquaintance of mine and have some fun.

Yesterday a friend emailed me to ask why I’d called her at 6:30 AM. While I slept, my phone had taken matters into its own hands and dialed her up.

And this is not an isolated incident. I once watched as my phone, which had sat untouched on a counter for several hours, spontaneously made a call. I have no explanation for said activity, except perhaps an unseen tremor in the forcefield.

Those of you who are more conversant with these things and how they work—and my guess is that that would include most of you—might be able to shed some light on the subject, before my phone’s harassing ways cause me to lose all the friends I ever had.

What’s wrong with this picture #2?

The New Neo Posted on by

Again, an excerpt from Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece on Barack Obama’s foreign policy:

During the peak of the protests in Iran, Jared Cohen, a young staffer at the State Department who worked for Slaughter, contacted officials at Twitter and asked the company not to perform a planned upgrade that would have shut down the service temporarily in Iran, where protesters were using it to get information to the international media. The move violated Obama’s rule of non-interference.

White House officials “were so mad that somebody had actually ”˜interfered’ in Iranian politics, because they were doing their damnedest to not interfere,” the former Administration official said. “Now, to be fair to them, it was also the understanding that if we interfered it could look like the Green movement was Western-backed, but that really wasn’t the core of it. The core of it was we were still trying to engage the Iranian government and we did not want to do anything that made us side with the protesters. To the Secretary’s credit, she realized, I think, before other people, that this is ridiculous, that we had to change our line.” The official said that Cohen “almost lost his job over it. If it had been up to the White House, they would have fired him.”

Fools, knaves, or some toxic combination of the two?

What’s wrong with this picture?

The New Neo Posted on by

From this New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza:

The two most influential foreign-policy advisers in the White House are Thomas Donilon, the national-security adviser, and Denis McDonough, a deputy national-security adviser. Donilon, who is fifty-five, is a longtime Washington lawyer, lobbyist, and Democratic Party strategist. McDonough started out as a congressional staffer and campaign adviser to Obama, a role that has given him a reputation as a non-ideological political fixer.

Andrew McCarthy on the al Qaeda Seven

The New Neo Posted on by

Worth reading.

Here’s an excerpt:

Never had it been the case, prior to the Lawyer Left’s activism in this war, that the rule of law was thought to require giving enemy detainees access to our courts. In fact, the post”“World War II Supreme Court rejected the idea as absurd. None other than Justice Robert Jackson, a progressive named to the Supreme Court by FDR after serving as his attorney general, explained that to permit such a thing “would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.”

Exhorted by the Lawyer Left, five willful justices on the Supreme Court abandoned this sensible jurisprudence, laying out the courthouse welcome mat for alien terrorists who target Americans for mass murder. Pace Friedersdorf, this was not reflective of the rule of law or any sort of Western norm. It was a radical departure. Those who imposed it were actually working against every citizen who values the wartime rule of law.