Obama Shut Out the AG on the Biggest Deal of His Term

Weeks before President Obama ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in May 2011, four administration lawyers developed rationales intended to overcome any legal obstacles — and made it all but inevitable that Navy SEALs would kill the fugitive Qaeda leader, not capture him.

[...]

[T]he lawyers worked in intense secrecy. Fearing leaks, the White House would not let them consult aides or even the administration’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

[...]

On April 28, 2011, a week before the raid, Michael E. Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, proposed at least telling Mr. Holder. “I think the A.G. should be here, just to make sure,” Mr. Leiter told Ms. DeRosa.

But Mr. Donilon decided that there was no need for the attorney general to know. Mr. Holder was briefed the day before the raid, long after the legal questions had been resolved.

  NYT

Can Eric Holder not keep a secret? Or did he know there really wasn't an honestly legal way to just go in and assassinate someone?

The legal analysis offered the administration wide flexibility to send ground forces onto Pakistani soil without the country’s consent, to explicitly authorize a lethal mission, to delay telling Congress until afterward, and to bury a wartime enemy at sea. By the end, one official said, the lawyers concluded that there was “clear and ample authority for the use of lethal force under U.S. and international law.”

And WH Attorney Alfredo Gonzalez also said torture is clearly legal.

Some legal scholars later raised objections, but criticism was muted after the successful operation.

Lost in celebration.

And hey, it could have been worse.

One proposal [to get rid of bin Laden] Mr. Obama considered, as previously reported, was to destroy the compound with bombs capable of taking out any tunnels beneath [and] the lawyers were prepared to deem significant collateral damage as lawful, given the circumstances.

Given the circumstances. But they didn't use that option, not because it would kill a lot of innocent people, but because it could be impossible to verify that bin Laden was actually killed.

“All it would have bought us was a propaganda fight.”

There was the small matter of international law prohibiting entering a sovereign country to carry out an assassination, but the lawyers signed off on an "exception" in this case, including the finding that the US president - at least in this particular case - was allowed to "violate international law when authorizing a 'covert' action."

The lawyers also grappled with whether it was lawful for the SEAL team to go in intending to kill Bin Laden as its default option. They agreed that it would be legal [arguing] The SEAL team expected to face resistance and would go in shooting, relying on the congressional authorization to use military force against perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

[...]

They discussed possible situations in which it might still be lawful to shoot Bin Laden even if he appeared to be surrendering — for instance, if militants next to him were firing weapons, or if he could be concealing a suicide vest under his clothing, officials said.

If the vest were concealed, how would they know he had it on? Silly me. A SEAL would happen to notice a suspicious lump in his caftan, no doubt.

And, you know the rest of the story.