|
【中文标题】杀死奥萨马•本•拉登合法吗？ 【原文标题】Was killing Osama bin Laden legal? 【登载媒体】www.seattlepi.com 【来源地址】http://bbs.m4.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=3098937&rpid=4441414&ordertype=0&page=1#pid4441414 【译者】逆卷炎灵（三流翻译，请多指教） 【翻译方式】人工 【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。 【译文】 Was killing Osama bin Laden legal?
By DAVID GLAZIER, SPECIAL TO SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
Published 11:16 p.m., Friday, May 13, 2011
杀死奥萨马•本•拉登合法吗？ 文：DAVID GLAZIER, SPECIAL TO SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 发布时间：2011年5月13日，周五23:16
Although Osama bin Laden's killing has received general public approval from the American public, its legality has been questioned. A fundamental challenge is identifying the set of legal rules that applies. Was this an effort to capture the FBI's most-wanted terrorist, to be judged by the standards of international human rights law? Or was it a strike against an opponent in an armed conflict, judged according to the law of war?
尽管杀死奥萨马•本•拉登赢得了美国公众的赞许，但其合法性仍然值得质疑。一个最根本的问题是关于那些法律规则的适用问题。难道这不应该是由FBI竭力逮捕之后，按国际人权法律的标准来判决吗？就算是一场战争、军事打击，不也应由战争法来判决吗？ Most critical accounts assume that the operation should be evaluated under human rights law, and the killing was clearly problematic from this perspective. International law prohibits law enforcement in foreign territory without that nation's consent. Moreover, lethal force is only permitted as a last resort; law enforcement personnel must try to capture criminals and bring them before the courts where justice is done. Killing all the men in a home when the only armed resistance came from a detached guesthouse would likely constitute murder had it occurred in a police raid. 大多数批评声都认为这次行动应该依照人权法律执行，从这个角度来说，这次行动显然是有问题的。在国际法里，未经他国同意，不能在他国执行法律。而且，只有在不得已的情况下才能动用致命武力。执法人员必须抓住罪犯，把他们带到法庭之上，然后由法庭进行正义制裁。警察突击进去，把那些待在家中的人杀死，他们仅有的反抗就是在房子里逃窜，这几乎构成谋杀。
But there is other law that must be considered.
但这里有另有其他法律需要考虑进去。
International recognition of 9/11 as an armed attack, coupled with the subsequent congressional authorization for the use of military force, places U.S. counter-terrorism on a unique footing. Although the "war on terror" sounds as metaphorical as "wars" on crime and drugs, the United States has actual legal authority to wage armed conflict against al Qaeda. Bin Laden's killing must therefore be evaluated under law of war rules, which permit enemy fighters and commanders to be killed on sight unless actually incapacitated or proactively offering surrender. Lawful wartime killing is not limited to "battlefields" (which is a descriptive rather than a legal term) nor must the opponent be resisting when struck. If a killing advances the achievement of conflict aims, is directed at a lawful object of attack without disproportionate civilian harm, and no specific law of war prohibitions are violated, then it is lawful. Available information suggests bin Laden's killing complied with these rules.
国际社会一直视911为一场武装袭击，随后国会授权动用军事力量，这了给美国反恐事业一个独特的立足点。尽管“对恐怖宣战”听起来像是一场对犯罪、贩毒的斗争，但实际上美国政府有明确的军事授权，以针对基地组织的军事袭击。因此，本拉登的死，需要从战争法的角度来审视，在战争法下，丧失民事行为能力、主动投降以外的敌军士兵、指挥官才可以被杀死。合法的杀害并不限制在“战争地带”（这只是一个通常的描述，并非法律用语），也并非要求敌人处于顽固抵抗的状态。如果杀害是在武装冲突之外，并且指向合法的攻击物，没有造成超比例的平民伤害，也不违背其他的战争法，那么这次杀害可以看作是合法的。综合以上可参考的信息来看，杀死本拉登是合法的。
It would have been a war crime, however, if the SEALs had been ordered not to take prisoners.
然而，如果海豹突击队被命令直接杀死拉登，那可能就是战争犯罪。
Some observers have suggested bin Laden was an assassination victim. The term generally describes politically motivated killings of public officials while the law of war limits targeting to those with military roles, even if they are civilians. As commander in chief, the president is thus subject to attack. In directing al Qaeda's operations, so was bin Laden. Law of war rules bar "assassination" but relate to the means -- employing treachery -- not the object. A military helicopter assault thus poses no legal issue here. It should be clear that facile conclusions about the killing's legality -- in either direction -- are generally based on simplistic assumptions; either treating the killing as one to be judged by ordinary human rights law on the one hand and condemning it, or assuming that the law of war grants carte blanche to any killing of an enemy on the other. The reality is more complex.
一些观察家说本拉登是“暗杀”的受害者。这个术语通常是指对官员的政治杀害，虽然他们是平民，战争法限制把这些带有军事行为的角色作为目标。作为最高指挥，总统先生就是这样的目标。相比基地组织的运作，拉登也是如此。战争法禁止“暗杀”，但这只就“背信弃义”而言。一架军事飞机的袭击并不能构成什么法律问题。有人认为这场行动应该由普通的人权法来调整，应当受到谴责，也有人假设战争法已经全权授予了对敌人的杀害，应当清楚，无论在从哪个角度，基于简单的假设得出的结论都是肤浅的。现实是极其复杂的。
David Glazier is a professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, where he teaches law of war and international law. He is a former Navy surface warfare officer.
大卫·加雷兹（David Glazier），洛杉矶罗耀拉法学院教授，教授战争法、国际法，前海军水面作战军官。 | 
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-5-17 15:56
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-5-17 16:38
从利比亚这次来看 法律就是美国和欧洲定的 且带有随机性 说它合法就合法
