The first illegal was the violation of Pakistani sovereignty. You can not go armed in a foreign country, private property and assaulting a kidnap or kill one of its occupants and those who seek help. The second is the extrajudicial execution of a criminal ground without trial or right to defense. The third is to get under torture from the information that led to the location of the offender.The first illegality was easily resolved, it was enough to get permission from Pakistan. The second also: Bin Laden is arrested instead of ending with him in a confused situation in which only information we have received contradictory. The third was difficult to resolve retrospect, no one can ignore useful information to defend his life by the mere fact of having been obtained by illegal means. The only contribution we can do for this side is that the eventual trial did not take into account the evidence obtained by torture or illegal detention.We must then examine the first two offenses. Imagine for a moment that Washington has asked the Pakistani government permission and cooperation to stop the Saudi mega-terrorism. To do something of this caliber should blindly trust the partner who is making such proposal. It is certain that the odds are drastically reduced in a possible joint military action. It is very strange that this option has been raised as one of the three studied, as reported by the White House, because it meant ensuring that the bird would fly before you hunt. If anyone has specialized in playing a double game, this was the Pakistani army and its very powerful secret services.
We have the arrest and surrender of Bin Laden to court. "The judge in New York at that natural has jurisdiction over the attacks of 11-S? "The International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague? "A military commission to try him summarily in Guantanamo or some other legal limbo? The cost-benefit ratio is disproportionate in all cases, especially if part of the initial decision to end Obama as Osama had a chance.
So the U.S. has decided not to follow legal procedures considered less effective in protecting its citizens and to provide escape routes or advertising the highest of the offenders. This attitude gives rise to a deep malaise, especially in Europe, and forced us into a thorny debate, but it is difficult to disregard Obama has acted in good conscience, above international law and in any case in accordance with the presidential oath which requires it to protect the safety of their fellow citizens.