[LINK] bin Laden is dead

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

On 4/05/2011 2:22 PM, Paul Bolger wrote:
> The available information has just changed.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834804576301351486023840.html

In this article there is a discussion on thh legality of the operation;

> The legal justifications for shooting bin laden dead come partly from 
> the rules under which the Seals were operating. They were under the 
> authority of the Central Intelligence Agency, which operates under 
> fewer restrictions than the military, which has rules governing when 
> troops can use deadly force. Even under the military's rules, the 
> killing was legally justified as long as bin Laden wasn't attempting 
> to surrender.
>
> Scott Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke Law School, 
> said there was no question the shooting was legally justified.
>
> "Under any operable rules of engagement, the issue does not raise 
> itself simply because he was resisting or there was the perception 
> they were being put in danger," he said.
>

I'd still like Karl to answer my question:

Could you please define "the rule of law", a phrase to which you make 
multiple references?

That way I could maybe respond to his statement:

Karl said:
> An argument is an argument. It's right or wrong, testable or not
> testable, plausible or not plausible.

I can't test the his argument without his definition of "the rule of law".

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra Australia
email:	brd at iimetro.com.au
website:	www.drbrd.com



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3613 - Release Date: 05/03/11