1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants?
2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed?
3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him?
4) why did "no one want detainees"?
It has always been OK to shoot enemy combatants who are not actively communicating their intent to surrender; just because someone is not obviously armed, does not mean that he is definitely not a threat. The more important question is, "How do you know if someone is an enemy combatant?" This becomes especially difficult if the enemy does not wear proper identifying clothing or insignia. In the most unambiguous cases, the inherent right to self defense kicks in: if someone has a gun and is acting in a threatening manner, you get to shoot. Beyond that, rules of engagement will define criteria for determining if an individual or unit should be considered hostile ("hostile" has specific meaning, including, "OK to shoot at."). UBL was unambiguously an enemy combatant, so the ROE in this scenario apparently defined him as hostile.
>2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed?
I don't think that phrase was meant to be as general as you are taking it to be. I think what was really meant was, "No one wanted to try to bring detainees out of Pakistan on the helicopters." The choice in re. UBL and his sons was to either kill them on the spot, turn them over to the Pakistanis, or fly them out on the helicopters. Turning them over to the Pakistanis has so many problems that I'm not even going to try to get into it. Trying to fly them out is risky because something could go wrong (e.g. helicopter shot down or crashed), resulting in escape, or capture by the Pakistanis. The highest priority here seems to have been closure, to get UBL out of the picture for sure, and flying him across a mountain range in a helicopter puts that objective at risk.
The same three choices (kill, turn over to Pakistan, or extract) applied to the women, but the need for closure didn't apply, so turning them over to the Pakistanis actually made the most sense.
>3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him?
Freezing alone has never been considered a form of surrender. Just freezing can indicate indicision, panic, or calculated caution just as easily as it can indicate a desire to surrender. Surrender requires a deliberate indication of an intent to surrender, such as putting your hands in the air or laying down on the ground. The fact that he used his wives as human shields indicated an intent to continue resisting, and he did nothing to adequately indicate that he had changed his mind and wanted instead to surrender. You can switch from fighting to surrendering at any point, right up to the moment before you are killed, but the other side has no obligation to pause at that moment to evaluate if you have changed your mind.
>4) why did "no one want detainees"?
See my answer to #2.
I think you mean armed combatant. An unarmed man being by definition a non-combatant.
The reason western militaries use uniforms is very different from the one you give. The fact that it differentiates conventional combatants from civilians is a consequence of wearing uniforms, not the reason. The original reason going back some centuries was to provide adequate, uniform, protection to poor peasants that lacked good clothing, distinguish own's troops from the enemy and instill "esprit de corps". The whole uniformed troops clearly marked as combatants is today a very Western value. We obviously would like everyone to fight like this, especially because Western armies are very good at this kind of fighting and would win quickly. Instead, they fight like guerillas, hiding among civilians, which multiplies their force and we can go on to complain how it's illegal according to Western customs.
And the whole "protecting civilians" argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era.
You're wrong about the reasons we wear uniforms today, although there is some validity to your remarks with respect to history. But these days, in the era of ubiquitous camouflage, the reason we wear a uniform is because the Geneva Convention requires it of combatants wishing to be protected under the Convention's provisions - from the International Committee of the Red Cross's website (http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/meth...) : "IHL includes a number of corollaries to the principle of distinction in order to secure the protection of civilian persons and objects. For example, it stipulates that combatants in an international armed conflict are required to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (normally by wearing a uniform) while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. In addition, IHL prohibits indiscriminate attacks and provides for the principle of proportionality, which dictates that the so called "incidental loss" of civilian life and/or property should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In order to implement the restrictions and prohibitions on targeting, specific precautions must also be observed by all Parties to an armed conflict."
For more information, you can try googling "Principle of Distinction"
Anyway, my point was that it was all rules made by Western powers to govern combat between great powers, and they have an obvious role of excluding smaller powers and non-state organizations from playing with the big boys. So when a non-state organization takes action against a state, this makes it legal for the state to treat them however they want.
Incidentally, the Geneva Conventions do provide some protections for unlawful combatants, just not the full set of protections guaranteed to lawful combatants. You can't just shoot them out of hand. However, you can put them on trial, sentence them to death, and execute them. The Geneva Conventions don't really spell out due process requirements for such situations, so the distinction between "shot out of hand" and "executed after trial" could potentially be trivial.
>So when a non-state organization takes action against a state, this makes it legal for the state to treat them however they want.
This is not true. If the non-state organization abides by the Geneva Conventions, and if the state they are fighting against is a signatory, then the state must treat the non-state actors as lawful combatants (depending on its scope and scale, a civil war could be an exception because the rebels could be considered traitors and tried as such). Even if the non-state actors don't play by the rules, they still get some protections, as I explain in my previous paragraph. The rules are actually quite easy to comply with, so smaller powers and non-state organizations are not "excluded" by an inability to follow the rules, only by a conscious choice to break them. For example, something as simple as color-coded armbands will satisfy the requirement to wear identifying insignia.
So an unarmed enemy messenger carrying orders or a scout acting as a lookout is off limits? A radio operator calling in mortar strikes? You can be a combatant without holding a gun.
You imply classism in that we only buy uniforms so our peasants will fight. I'm curious what the annual salary of a E-1 is versus a suicide bomber? Is there a Jihadist GI bill I'm unaware of? The biggest rich/poor divide I see isn't on our end.
You also imply that we want opposing forces to wear uniforms only because it gives us an advantage. That protecting civilians is just a cover story. If that's the case why send soldiers to Afghanistan at all? If civilians don't matter to us then a single trident sub could handle the whole war for us.
"The whole protecting civilians argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era."
"They fight like guerillas, hiding among civilians, which multiplies their force and we go on to complain how it's illegal according to Western customs"
So the side that wants to fight with uniforms are complainers that kill civilians, and the side that hides behind civilians are just fighting fairly according to their customs? What?
This is horridly disingenuous. WWII saw firebombings of major cities, nukes, etc. The ratio of civilian-military casualties is going up because troops are becoming damned near invulnerable to a lot of things they used to die from. The number of civilian casualties has dropped hugely from past conflicts.
[1] Operation Vengenace
[2] The planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, as well as the driving force behind the modern, carrier-centric Japanese Navy
In this case Bin Laden used his wives as human shields and only froze after that plan was foiled. Note that the first SEAL used non-deadly force on one of the women and even risked his life in bear-hugging them to protect his teammates.
They said that capture would have been possible had he surrendered immediately; he didn't do this, he used his wives as human shields.
Enemy combatants are never considered unarmed..it has been that way since WWII..enemy combatants are considered unarmed when we have unarmed them..
No wanted detainees because ahem its Pakistan rules if in their country and have captured enemy combatants alive..