They did not shoot Osama on sight. While that would have been legal since there was an AUMF, as a practical matter had he surrendered he would have been arrested. Extrajudicial execution is abhorrent.
> ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of...
A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong?
Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now.
China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.
The lease ran out, this was planned all along. The people don't like the changes that's for sure but their will was never something China would be bothered with.
Up until that point the invasions, surveillance, renditions, torture and threat to civil liberties could be justified as, or at least categorized as, means to oppose Al Qaeda. By killing bin Laden he became just another enemy in a long line of people that the US wants to kill. And the methods of the war on terror, instead of a regrettable period in US history, just another tool for the US to use as it sees fit.
> And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?
Probably not, which is sort of the point.
"I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States"
"Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States...
Before you yell about wikipedia as a source, consider that this is a well-known fact.
Besides that, international legality is defined solely by the countries with the biggest sticks. That will always be true, without exception. The UN and all global bodies of justice and rule setting derive their authority and possess capability solely at the permission of the most powerful nations.
The world isn't run by the UN, international legality isn't defined by 195 nations, it's all run by six or seven countries (which control the majority of all economic activity and by far have the most powerful militaries). The UN is a lever for those powerful nations to keep order in dealing with all the others. It's a means to herd cats.
There's a quote by a rather vile heiress named Leona Helmsley, paraphrasing: taxes are for the little people. Respecting sovereignty is only a fixed rule for the little countries. Why? Because of how consequences work and who can dish them out. I'm not advocating that, mind you, I'm saying that's actually how the world works and always will. You see it with every empire that has ever existed, you see it with the US, Russia, China, etc.
Agreed, but governments do plenty of abhorrent things.