The rules of war (which evolved from the Geneva Convention) cover it.

As far as I know, the US isn't in a state of war with Pakistan. A 'war' in this definition requires there to be two nations involved. Hunting international criminals inside another sovereign state is not a war.
Which nations has America declared war against at the moment?

This also means it can't be a "war crime". Instead it's just a violation of Pakistani law (crossing the border without permission, weapons possession, use of explosives, trespass, break-and-enter, GBH, quadruple murder...). Pakistan sure as hell isn't going to do anything about this violation of their sovereignty though, because like you were saying, words like "illegal" become difficult when dealing with a rogue state armed to the teeth with WMDs.

Also, isn't it US policy that terrorists are "unlawful combatants" and aren't covered by the laws of war? i.e. They are not enemy soldiers captured during war, which instead, according to convention, places them under the jurisdiction of the detaining state's domestic law (which in practice means an American military tribunal)?

While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general

The European international courts would've been happy to give him a trial -- in fact it would've been seen as a ridiculous show-trial if the Americans had done it themselves.

Ofcourse this also assumes that pakistan gave their permission for the operation (If not it would have been a violation of their sovereignity, but given the rather good US-Pakistan relations since 2001 I assume they did allow it.

They've publicly said that they did not give permission for the operation, and weren't even informed until afterwards. I wouldn't call them "good relations" either - cooperating with the US is a very tense and harmful necessary evil for them.

He's had a public price on his head dead or alive for 10 years and as far as I can tell they ran in the front door guns blazing. That's not really an assassination.

They ran in guns blazing, so it's not an assassination? They offered a cash reward in an effort to incite someone to kill him, so it's not an assassination? What???

[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304713880' post='4807481']The rules of war (which evolved from the Geneva Convention) cover it.

As far as I know, the US isn't in a state of war with Pakistan. A 'war' in this definition requires there to be two nations involved. Hunting international criminals inside another sovereign state is not a war.
Which nations has America declared war against at the moment?
[/quote]

War does not and never has required two nations. Since after World War II, the United States military establishment has pursued an interventionalist policy allowing them to retain all options to influence foreign affairs, which means that declarations of war are obsolete. I also wonder whether most non-Western nations and groups would subscribe to the old-fashioned and distinctly Western notion of "civilized" war. I think there are two reasons why traditional wars between nations are increasingly less frequent: 1) the world is more economically and politically integrated and the sources of conflict are frequently internal matters or objections to the way maps have been drawn by disadvantaged minority groups and 2) nuclear weapons, the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police, and the aforementioned economic interdependency make conventional war exceedingly costly and risky. Therefore, states are more likely to use asymmetric methods -- terrorist groups, for example, as Iran and Pakistan have been doing to promote their interests in the middle east and south Asia.

While on the one hand, the global community is becoming ever more integrated, political commonality is ever more elusive. The international order envisioned by Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual descendants is a distinctly Western vision not shared by today's rising powers.

Unconventional warfare is going to be an uncomfortable reality for a long while. Let's hope it doesn't lead to large, conventional wars any time soon! Let's also hope we don't bankrupt ourselves trying to manage the threat.

The European international courts would've been happy to give him a trial -- in fact it would've been seen as a ridiculous show-trial if the Americans had done it themselves.[/quote]

Bin Laden would have likely died of old age before the European courts reached a verdict. Also, the United States does not want to be subject to international tribunals. We call the shots because might makes right.

They ran in guns blazing, so it's not an assassination? They offered a cash reward in an effort to incite someone to kill him, so it's not an assassination? What???
[/quote]

True, it definitely was an assassination. All males in the compound were killed, but not the women, which makes the claim that the SEALs were fearful of suicide vests and booby traps dubious (the women would have just as likely triggered them). There are probably a lot of practical reasons why the US did not want the dramatic spectacle of putting Bin Laden on trial. But one also has to wonder whether they were hoping to protect the Pakistanis from embarrassing revelations about cooperation between Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the ISI. The US clearly wants to make its dissatisfaction well known to check Pakistani behavior, but it cannot afford to sever the relationship altogether, as officials have stated recently. Pakistan is a massive country that is on track to be the fifth most populous nation on Earth, after the US itself, possesses nuclear weapons, and is dangerously unstable.

the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police

We call the shots because might makes right.

I really do not understand why some people have hatred for Americans.
What about Interpol? Are they not the world's police force whilst American is the world's current biggest bully and warmonger.

[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']
the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police

We call the shots because might makes right.

I really do not understand why some people have hatred for Americans.
What about Interpol? Are they not the world's police force whilst American is the world's current biggest bully and warmonger.
[/quote]

Interpol? LOL!

America is an empire and the world prospers under Pax Americana. The Washington-New York axis runs the world.

[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']
the overbearing presence of the United States acting as world police

We call the shots because might makes right.

I really do not understand why some people have hatred for Americans.
What about Interpol? Are they not the world's police force whilst American is the world's current biggest bully and warmonger.
[/quote]

Interpol catches criminals; it does not conduct military affairs. It's like comparing the New York police force with the US army.

People hate the US for a lot of reasons, some rationally deducible and others less so. The US has the power to choose what happens to a large degree in many situations. If the United States chose not to intervene in some foreign issue, that would be the United States deciding that what is right to do is not intervene under those circumstances. Might does not make right from a moral or ethical standpoint. But because the US does indeed have sufficient might, it also has the capacity to establish the framework for many practical matters, and inaction shapes such things as much as action does.

We call the shots because might makes right.

America is an empire and the world prospers under Pax Americana.

...and that nonsense marks the end of the thread.

[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304799626' post='4807787']We call the shots because might makes right.

America is an empire and the world prospers under Pax Americana.

...and that nonsense marks the end of the thread.
[/quote]

Whatever. Your country benefits enormously from it. Easy for you to be a critic.

awesome video lol

What the likelihood of those schmucks actually acting on their latest threats ( blood turning to tears and all that )?

One thing that worries me is that 9/11 is closing again and those idiots really don't know when to quit. It's "perfect" for them... Ten years anniversary, 9/11, dead Osama, new target?