Omar bin Laden, bin Laden’s fourth eldest son, has allegedly issued a statement that calls the killing of his father as a “criminal” act and a humiliation for his family. Notably, he indicated the possibility of a lawsuit against the United States.
The lawsuit would attempt to “determine the true fate of our vanished father.” He noted, as have other Muslims, that the burial at sea was considered an affront to their religion — despite the Administration that it performed the service to comply with Muslim traditions.
The letter was published by the website of Islamist ideologue Abu Walid al-Masri and has not been confirmed by Omar Bin Laden.
The letter stated, in part: “We hold the American President (Barack) Obama legally responsible to clarify the fate of our father, Osama bin Laden, for it is unacceptable, humanely and religiously, to dispose of a person with such importance and status among his people, by throwing his body into the sea in that way, which demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and which challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims.”
There are international principles that could be raised, including the statements by Pakistan that (despite conflicting statements from Obama Administration officials) they never approved the attack on Pakistani territory. Under U.S. common law, there are also obvious legal principles, including the mistreatment of corpses. However, the success of such a lawsuit in the United States is extremely doubtful. Since this was a foreign operation and involved foreign citizens, the jurisdiction of the courts would be hard to establish. Moreover, there is no legal requirement under U.S. law for the retention of these bodies and the disposal would be viewed as reasonable.
None of this means that the Obama Administration is not skirting international law in asserting the right to go into a foreign country and kill everyone in a house. Imagine our response if Mexico took out wanted individuals in a house in Houston. Even under U.S. law, the Administration has long ignored core protections such as its insistence that Obama can order the killing of U.S. citizens abroad. I do not believe that “hot pursuit” claims would be sufficient to justify the operation. This is a narrow doctrine that is derived from maritime cases.
None of this has bearing on the possible Bin Laden lawsuit. With U.S. courts practically unavailing in such a lawsuit, it would leave foreign or international courts. However, it is unlikely that the burial would be a viable claim. As for the killing, it could get murky with claims of implicit, if not explicit, permission for such operations.
Source: Yahoo
Jonathan Turley
I assume he hasn’t signed on with King & Spalding.
The success of such a lawsuit in any legitimate court of competent jurisdiction is doubtful.
“the success of such a lawsuit in the United States is extremely doubtful”
Exactly.
George Bush and Obama have done away with the “quaint” rule of law…whether bin Laden was killed legally or illegally is of no
importance. The United States now dictates what is legal and illegal on this planet.
No one is more powerful than the United States.
George Bush and Obama have done away with the “quaint” rule of law…whether bin Laden was killed legally or illegally is of no importance.
The United States now dictates what is legal and what is illegal.
George Bush and Obama have done away with the “quaint” rule of law…whether bin Laden was killed legally or illegally is of no importance.
The United States now dictates what is legal and what is illegal.
The solution is simple. Actually confirm if Omar said this. If so, exterminate it along with any other Muslim who sides with Osama bin Laden by decrying how its body was disposed of.
If they complain, they accept Osama as a Muslim; if they accept Osama as a Muslim, they support Islamic terrorism as part of their “faith.” If they support Islamic terrorism as part of their “faith,” they are valid targets for extermination.
Well said Mespo. I would love to see OBL’s son try to file the suit. I can always use a good laugh.
ekeyra:
“It is amusing to no end how easily the people on this blog, which is supposedly about the law are so eager to cast it aside when they find it convenient and morally palatable to do so.”
*******************************
I find not one comment casting aside the law here. No one challenges the right to file the suit. The point is that it is DOA, not according to any legal standard, but according to the precepts of the ultimate court in any democracy — the one that presides at the end of Public Opinion Way.
It is amusing to no end how easily the people on this blog, which is supposedly about the law are so eager to cast it aside when they find it convenient and morally palatable to do so.
Mespo,
It sounds like something out of Sarah Palin’s mouth. You are correct that the irony is off the charts!
The irony is priceless. The son of the one who pronounced the US the world’s “Great Satan” now seeks to utililze the devil’s own legal system for redress –and all of it to “vindicate” his father’s death at the hands of that “Great Satan.” Maybe I should be proud (in a perverse way) at the unintended compliment to our legal system this implies, but the hilarity overtakes it tempered by the patheticness of it all. I shall await the filing.
Just who might those people be, specifically? And can we get them all into one place at the same time?
Oh, and Omar bin Laden, seriously, dude… STFU.
Otteray Scribe stated the obvious. A counter-suit for the deaths, property damage, and the trillions spent looking for him would be called for in the event that a lawsuit is actually allowed to happen. Let the son deduct any money awarded to him from the trillions from the counter-suit. This is especially true because you would assume that many of the “thousands of men, women and children” he killed in 9/11 and the many more he has killed or has caused to be killed in so many other terrorist attacks were Muslim
And yes, it would be a farce of a lawsuit.
However, it is true we broke international laws and even US laws – well US laws were broken “allegedly” until you can prove that there was an order to kill Osama. Not that fact has any bearing on a lawsuit from his family.
OS,
I like your idea!! Let’s recover the Billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers who lost their lives looking for OBL. I agree with Prof. Turley that this proposed lawsuit is dead on arrival.
If this ever makes it to any court, it’s going to be a show trial, one way or the other. Which is a shame, for all parties involved.
I could mention the Towers and the affront to the religion of those who jumped to their deaths to avoid the flames but I doubt bin Laden’s son would appreciate the distinction.
Perhaps Spain will give his claims a hearing …
Perhaps a countersuit against the OBL estate for recovery of damages related to 9-11 would be in order? The family is rich, but not that rich.
I am bemused by the fact Omar says the family has been “humiliated” by the killing of Osama. I would think they would be more humiliated by the fact he reveled in killing thousands of men, women and children. On second thought, perhaps the son is a sociopath like his the father.
I have wondered if one of the notorious “birther” lawyers would attempt a wrongful death suit, on the argument that Obama lacked the authority to order a special operation. The trick would be to find someone who had standing.
I think they have their plaintiff.
Now how does the family in New York or Jersey deal with these types of claims….The Hudson comes to mind….
Didn’t the Sct under Bush I say that the 4th Amendment has no applicability outside of the US?
I am unsure what will happen to Omar’s claim….