Harold Koh on the Legal Explanation for Killing Bin Laden

In light of some of our previous discussions involving the targeted military killing of Osama Bin Laden (e.g., here, here, here, and here), I thought I would point readers to Professor Koh's (now at DOS) explanation at Opinio Juris.  I am not an expert in the law of armed conflict, but it is interesting to me to see two different sorts of explanations at work in Professor Koh's post -- one dealing with self-defense (sounding some of the themes that Eduardo raised earlier -- and suggesting to me that he was probably onto something, and that my strong skepticism of the self-defense model may not be right) and another dealing with the independent sufficiency of the fact -- apart from any issue of self-defense -- that we are in an "armed conflict" with al-Qaeda (reminiscent of some of the points that Greg and I, I think, were making).  I am thinking of this statement in particular: "But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force." (emphasis mine)  Take a look.

ADDENDUM: I should note that Koh is speaking here in his official capacity within the United States government.  And on the issue of self-defense, there is the tricky little problem of the killing having occurred on Pakistani soil, which Professor Koh does not address.  Apart from the question whether the rules of international law permit the use of "self-defense" under such circumstances, there is the fundamental issue about whether it is in the very nature of "self-defense" that the harm to "self" must be imminent.