Many people are glad that Osama Bin Laden was shot last Sunday. Others think he’s still alive while others think he died years ago. But one idea that hasn’t been talked about much yet deserves an answer because of something President Obama did in January of 2009.

“With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the ‘war on terror,’ as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the US government in battling its enemies will not be limitless,” it said.

“In a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after September 11, 2001,” the Post added.

“It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power.”

Think about it a second. Going into a sovereign nation with an military force and killing someone on their soil, without prior consent, is an act of war. That would be fine if we were in a declared war with Pakistan as an ally. But President Obama ended the war on terror in 2009. According to the president we’ve been engaged in “overseas contingency operations”. Not a war. Which means what the administration did on Sunday was an undeclared act of war.

While many people are happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead, several things need to be noted here. The United States is a nation which is supposed to operate under the rule of law. That is why the previous president, George W. Bush, made sure every action his administration took was covered legally. He made sure resolutions were passed by the UN allowing him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. He got Congress to approve the invasion. He got Congress to fund Guantanamo Bay’s prison complex. Many people still accused him of acting unilaterally even though he had many nations as allies, more than President Obama in his Libya “non-war”. And unlike president Obama he got Congress to sign off on his actions. But President Obama acted entirely on his own here. He did not get anyone’s approval. Under the definitions of the left, he acted like a lawless “cowboy”. And he did so by his own foolish decision to end the war on terror two years ago.

The allegedly careful and thoughtful president may have outed himself as something entirely different.

If he still had a declared war running he would have been on more solid ground, but the president has gone out of his way to look like he’s anti war despite starting one in Libya without the constitutional steps required by law.

Many legal experts say the administration is in the clear legally regarding the OBL operation.

As legal justification, law professors and other experts in military operations uniformly cite an act of Congress that was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The resolution lets the president use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” he determines aided in the 2001 attacks. It justifies the actions in the name of self-defense, “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism” against the U.S.

The resolution applies to military operations such as the raid on bin Laden’s lair in Pakistan and past raids on al Qaeda operatives abroad, say legal experts who study military actions.

The problem is, President Obama ended the war on terror. The killing of Osama may be authorized by that act, but President Obama nullified the war on terror. That authorization applies to war that is no longer declared, and it’s merely saying the US Government saying it approves. There is still the question of International Law.

This is important because the reason we have laws is to hold society together. It’s what separates us from anarchy and tyranny. Any government’s actions must be legally justified or they are acting as an autocratic rogue state. We have an obligation to bring the accused to justice and try them in a court of law whenever possible. To show that, unlike the terrorists who are the rabid face of anarchy, we represent civilization and order. But after the conflicting story of what happened still isn’t straight, after the bodies shown are unarmed and they refuse to release any tapes or pictures of the actions, there are a lot of questions that are bound to multiply.

It will be interesting to see how they can cover themselves legally after what could turn out into a International legal nightmare.