策劃、編譯■李威撰、謝雯伃

賓拉登喪生消息在5月1日傳出以後，

有人歡慶911罹難者的正義終獲平反，有人則哀嘆帝國主義再次獲勝，

各種意見評論排山倒海而來，攻擊合法與否則是最主要的爭議之一。

儘管歐巴馬政府為其行為辯護，美國的國際法專家仍表示，狙殺賓拉登的行動，仍存在重要法律問題。

International law experts in the United States said important legal questions remained about the killing of Osama bin Laden even as the Obama administration defended the action.

在911恐怖攻擊過後一週，國會即通過一項法案，讓美國總統擁有更大的權力去對抗恐怖主義；但部分專家表示，就國際法而論，派遣突擊隊攻擊蓋達領袖的合法性仍不明朗。

While an act of Congress a week after the September 11 attacks gave the U.S. president broad powers to act against terrorism, the legality of the commando （1） killing of the al Qaeda leader is less clear under international law, some experts said.

歐巴馬在美國境內民調支持率上升，但這次突襲事件讓世界各國開始關切：美國在面對全球頭號通緝要犯時，身兼警察、法官及行刑劊子手的角色是否太超過。

President Barack Obama got a boost in U.S. opinion polls （2）, but the killing raised concerns elsewhere that the United States may have gone too far in acting as policeman, judge and executioner of the world's most wanted man.

對布希及歐巴馬政府來說，首要之務就是逮捕或狙殺賓拉登。在達成這個目標時，他們都願意靠情報單位來獨自採取行動，即使賓拉登跨越阿富汗的國界來到巴基斯坦。

Both the Bush and Obama administrations made capturing or killing bin Laden a top priority. Each was willing to act alone on intelligence toward that goal even if bin Laden was in Pakistan across the border from Afghanistan.

「就法律層面來看，這是個複雜問題。」密西根大學法學院教授拉特納表示：「很大程度上取決於你究竟認為賓拉登是一名戰爭中的戰鬥人員，或是一名大屠殺的嫌犯。」

"It's a complicated question as a legal matter," said Steven Ratner, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. "A lot of it depends on whether you believe Osama bin Laden is a combatant （3） in a war or a suspect in a mass murder."

歐巴馬政府採取的立場是，政府正在與蓋達組織對戰，按照這個說法，可聲稱殺害賓拉登是合法的。「他到底有無持有槍械都不重要。」拉特納說：「法律上你是可以殺死戰鬥人員的。」

Under the theory that the government is at war against al Qaeda -- which the Obama administration has adopted -- one could argue that the killing of bin Laden was legal. "Whether he has a gun or not really doesn't matter," said Ratner. "You're lawfully permitted to kill combatants."

美國最高法律執行官，司法部長霍德4日在參院的委員會中表示，這項行動是合法的。「他是蓋達組織的首腦，這個組織犯下911攻擊事件。」霍德說：「在戰場上將敵軍指揮官列為攻擊目標是合法的，二戰期間擊毀山本五十六的座機便是一例。」

Attorney General Eric Holder, the country's top law enforcement officer, told a U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday that the operation was legal. "He was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th," Holder said. "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field. We did so, for instance, with regard to Yamamoto in World War Two, when he was shot down in an airplane."

白宮3日表示，賓拉登當時未武裝，這與先前美國政府表示賓拉登與美軍交火的說法有所出入。在參院的聽證會中，霍德表示，即使賓拉登試圖要投降：「為保護自身及建築物內其他人的安全，英勇無匹的海軍海豹部隊成員有很好的理由可以這麼做。」

The White House said on Tuesday that bin Laden was not armed, contradicting an earlier U.S. account that he had taken part in a firefight. At the Senate hearing, Holder said that even if bin Laden had tried to surrender, "there would be a good basis on the part of those very brave Navy SEAL team members to do what they did in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building."

在布希任內曾擔任司法部長的龔薩雷斯則表示，分析應就此打住。「他是軍事行動目標。」龔薩雷斯向《路透》表示，「我們正在戰事中，這點無庸置疑。我不清楚到底在爭論些甚麼。」

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who served in the Bush administration, said the analysis should end there. "He was a military target," Gonzales told Reuters. "We're in a conflict -- there's no question about that. I'm not sure what the debate is about."

龔薩雷斯補充道，賓拉登武裝與否皆無關緊要。「假設我們以發射導彈的方式去擊殺賓拉登。」龔薩雷斯說：「那我們還會問他是否有武裝嗎？」

Gonzales added that whether bin Laden was armed or not was irrelevant. "Suppose we fired a missile," said Gonzales. "Would we be asking the question if he was armed or not?"

拉特納表示，賓拉登若是被當成是大屠殺的嫌犯，美國此次行動的法律分析結果將會有所不同。「如果你是在這個框架下採取行動，那麼唯有他們對你構成直接的威脅時，你才能殺死嫌犯。」他補充道。

The legal analysis of a U.S. operation is different if bin Laden is considered a mass murder suspect, Ratner said. "If you're operating in that framework, you would only be able to kill a suspect if they represented an immediate threat to you," he added.

西北大學法學院的國際人權中心主任薛佛表示，讓情況更複雜的是，曼哈頓地方法院曾在1998年以陰謀攻擊美國防禦設施的罪名來起訴賓拉登。「一般來說，當某人被起訴時，那麼目標就是將該人緝捕到案，並將其送上法庭受審。」薛佛說：「如果他被起訴，目標就不是草率地將其處決。」

Complicating the picture is that bin Laden was indicted in Manhattan U.S. District Court in 1998 for conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations, said David Scheffer, director for the Center for International Human Rights at the Northwestern University School of Law. "Normally when an individual is under indictment （4） the purpose is to capture that person in order to bring him to court to try him," Scheffer said. "The object is not to literally summarily execute him if he's under indictment."

拉特納和薛佛表示，這次行動所牽涉到主要問題包括：執行任務的海軍海豹部隊所接受到的行動命令為何，以及賓拉登做了哪些投降的行為。

Ratner and Scheffer said key questions remained about the operation, such as what instructions the Navy SEALs （5） who carried out the mission were given and what efforts bin Laden had made to surrender.

薛佛表示，若海軍海豹部隊所接受的命令是擊殺賓拉登，而沒有先嘗試去逮捕他，那麼，就算沒有違反國際法，也違背了美國的理念。「在我看來，就美國社會的特性而言，若遵循交戰原則，至少先下令以逮捕賓拉登為優先，這才與美國的價值更為一致。」

Scheffer said if the Navy SEALs were ordered to kill bin Laden without trying first to capture him, it may have violated American ideals if not international law. "It seems to me that with the character of our society, it might have been more consistent with American values to have at least ordered his capture with rules of engagement," he said.

（路透 Reuters）

1. commando

(n.) 突擊隊員

2. opinion poll

(n.) 民意調查

3. combatant

(n.) 戰鬥人員

4. indictment

(n.) 控告

5. Navy SEALs

(n.) 美國海軍海豹部隊

立報歡迎您投稿與指教。詳情請參投稿與聯絡立報