Too complacent in my opinion... al Qaeda responds to Western hypocrisy and double standards directed against Muslims - a lot of people died over that at 9/11, for example, when it could have been avoided.

km

Apologies in advance -- this turned into a much longer post than I anticipated =D


I disagree. From what I've been able to tell from reports of the Parliamentary session and the resolution it released, if anything they actually lend a small bit more credence to the secret agreement story.

For one, I can't find any quotation from either members of the Parliament or the statements/resolutions they released calling the raid illegal -- the wording is very explicitly "unacceptable" and "unilateral," but "illegal" is noticeably absent from these quotes and citations. They seem really, REALLY pissed that the US didn't inform them, just a tad less angered their military didn't know about it regardless, and only bit less upset about their borders being crossed ... but the issue of legality doesn't appear to have found much voice.

The closest they've come is talking about a violation of sovereignty, which can go a few ways, legally, especially if the sovereign allegedly invites the violation. Even the Pakistani foreign minister hedged a bit:

“I’m not saying legal or illegal, but this is a global issue and we need to sort of work it out somehow, in the best interests of international peace and security”

Also, one of the resolutions calls to “revisit and review its terms of engagement with the United States, with a view to ensuring that Pakistan’s national interests are fully respected and accommodated.” Obviously there's an agreement of some sort in place that relates to US entering Pakistani territory they feel gives the US too much license ...

It really does sound like they're understandably upset that the "terms of engagement" allowed the US to do this and they need to express that displeasure and enact legislation preventing such terms in the future. It really *doesn't* sound like "the US broke the law and we're totally taking their asses to court!" ...

Not saying it won't happen, but is sure doesn't seem that way right now =)

BTW, here are the articles I've found. If you have something more definitive (like an actual text of the resolution -- I wasn't able to find a transcript) I'd love to see what you're working from =)

AFP report
DAWN report
Deccan Chronicle report
France 24 report
The Beeb
Al Jazeera
The Globe & Mail



If the law gives discretion to the Executive as to who can enter or not, how would the Executive actually exercising that discretion, albeit in secret, require a change in the law?



Not if the "official refusal" is merely a public statement after the fact (I'm assuming you're alluding to Musharrif's public denial) and the alleged clandestine agreement is a signed and duly-executed document before-hand.

I'll even go further and speculate that even if the "official refusal" was also a signed document, it could easily be rescinded by a later, secret one ;-)

Cloak and dagger is fun!

And yet another skillful sidestep and dodge. I am not saying Muslims aren't pissed...
I am saying nothing legally, in the court system or from the ICC or any other legal course..

There... did I spell it out enough?.....

Why would they be pissed if they'd already agreed: "Oh by the way, send your troops over anytime you like - you don't have to inform us in advance, just tell us afterwards". I'm not getting how a situation can be both acceptable and unacceptable to them at the same time - seems like another miracle.


Yeah well that means a violation of their territorial integrity .. which is illegal.


Possibly because he himself is the fruitcake trying to smooth over his mistake?


Not one that would be upheld in the courts, that's the fruitcake agreement - one with no legal effect.


White House statements that Pakistan was not informed in case it compromised the mission - in relation to that: Art 2(4) UN Charter that members "refrain in their international relations from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...". Then from a radio broadcast about Pakistan's reaction to the raid in Parliament which referred to a violation of sovereignty deserving of sanctions such as withdrawal of co-operation. Had there been any lawful agreement allowing the raid there would have been no violation of sovereignty.

km

Sidestep and dodge? I don't agree with that.


Well my point is not that legal action will follow, but that it should follow. It's always been my position that compliance with our own values and international obligations is not only inherently right but in our own interests vis-a-vis the acts of freedom fighters.

km

Yes.. and then there is the "spirit of the law". Not everything is black and white.

Ah, the 'Volksgeist'... well, equality before the law was central to Savigny's theory on that and I agree it would be a good idea if we all insisted on it being translated into practice... rather than just plonking it into the 14th Amendment and forgetting about it.

km

TinFoilHat



The same reason that, say, the US Congress in a similar situation would be upset with the President if he had made such an agreement. Congress couldn't claim it's actually illegal, since the Executive was exercising authority it legally has. The best they could do is a) be outraged, b) call for investigations and c) look into preventing such a thing from happening again legislatively. All of which the Parliament of Pakistan has done. What they haven't done yet, as far as I can tell, is actually call the action illegal and demand US accountability. Might happen as time goes on, but that it hasn't yet lends some credence at this point to there having been a back-room agreement.



Well, that's not so cut-and-dried. If a husband gives a set of house keys to his buddy, gives him permission to come and go without first informing anyone, but the husband doesn't tell his wife; when the wife finds the buddy lounging on the couch, she can be understandably upset with the husband but really can't claim his buddy did anything illegal -- even though in her mind her husband's buddy violated the integrity of their home. (Which, after she goes absolutely ballistic, is exactly what she tells anyone who will listen before, during and after the divorce proceedings ;-)



What I think is entirely plausible is that the Pakistani Executive secretly granted permission for the US to go after bin Laden unannounced inside Pakistan. When the US does just that, the Parliament goes nuts (as they rightly should), hauls the executive staff into a closed-door session and grills them about WTF is going on. It's then they are told about the agreement, which effectively hamstrings them from taking legal action but also provides for plausible deniability on the part of Pakistan -- which everyone wants because there's virtually no upside for anybody in the room to making the agreement public.

So Parliament comes out of the session condemning the US raid, not for being illegal, but for its unilateral nature; calling it a violation of their sovereignty (which, conveniently, only Pakistan has standing to bring to court -- which they won't); threatening to cut off supply lines to Afghanistan, not now but if it happens again; and vowing with absolute sincerity to make sure legislatively it won't happen again (i.e. make it impossible for the Executive to get them into this mess again) ...

From what I've seen, everything Pakistan has done and said publicly supports this scenario =)




Nope. Those persons are reported to be two successive Presidents of Pakistan.



Hey, how about that!


/TinFoilHat =D

No in Pakistan the executive is subject to the law like everyone else - government ministers or ex ministers can't just let illegal immigrants into the country when the legislature has laid down contrary rules of entry.


In that case the invitation does not involve an illegality so it's not really comparable. A closer analogy would be the husband authorising his buddy to kill the lodger, dump his body in the lake and help himself to any property he wants to take away. In Pakistan possession of firearms for example and entry to private premises involve criminal and tortious acts which the executive has no power to authorise any more than it can authorise a summary execution and illegal burial. An invitee who commits a crime or tort is a trespasser for exceeding lawful permission and the killing of bin Laden is all the more suspicious in that situation because it negates the defence of self-defence.

As to your other points I agree that there may be a lack of political will to bring the perpetrators to justice or apply sanctions in default of cooperation by the US but that's exactly why the ICC procedures should be invoked.

km

That would depend of the laws specific to Pakistan and wether they in fact restrict the Executive from making such agreements, which you're assuming, or wether he has authority to make such arrangements in his capacity of administering immigration, which I'm theorizing. I doubt either of us is conversant enough with Pakistani law to say definitively one way or another without research -- and at this point my search-fu is knackered ;-)



Well, that analogy was meant in reference to sovereignty and not much else -- and is going to get all Dorian Gray on us if it gets too complex -- BUT ...

Your revision itself breaks down since as far as we know bin Laden was not an invited guest and supposedly wanted by the Pakistanis themselves. So another revision might be that the husband gives his buddy permission to come and go unannounced in order to kill that [dangerous animal] everyone's been looking for if it's gotten inside.

But if it's going to get that specific and tortured, we might as well not use analogies anymore and just get back to the real thing =)



If you claim to be knowledgeable about what specifically constitutes a crime under Pakistani law, more power to you ... but I find it hard to believe, for example, that possession of a firearm is illegal in Pakistan of all places ;-)