And this is the second rebuke from the UN on the killing of Osama bin Laden.

(Fox News) — The response to the death of Usama bin Laden by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, and two “experts” appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council ought to be ringing a lot of alarm bells right now.

Just last month, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations told Congress that “when we meet our financial obligations to the U.N., we make Americans safer.”

On the contrary, U.N. reaction to Bin Laden’s death indicates that the Obama administration’s warm embrace of the organization is endangering American lives.

The U.N.’s top human rights official took time this past week to concern herself about the treatment Bin Laden received as he was killed. She demanded to know “the precise facts surrounding his killing” for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, “counter-terrorism activity . . . in compliance with international law” means “you’re not allowed . . . to commit extra-judicial killings.” And this requirement would only be satisfied if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their “stated . . . intention . . . to arrest bin Laden if they could.”

On Friday, two professors and part-time U.N. “experts,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, issued a joint statement on Bin Laden’s killing. The two academics claimed that “the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment.” They also insisted that the U.N. was entitled to receive “more facts” “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.” Those standards would be violated, they claimed, unless “the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”

The suggestion from these U.N. authority-figures that America is criminally at fault for killing Bin Laden if their terms have not been satisfied is both offensive and legally false.

Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which . . . makes an effective contribution to military action and whose . . . destruction . . . offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.

In the minds of those at the U.N, however, the life-and-death struggle to defend freedom from Islamic terrorists is occurring in a vacuum. They insist that the applicable legal regime is international human rights law which considers the single individual and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, requires due process and condemns anything else as “extrajudicial” killing. Their response to the laws of warfare is: “what war?”

So here we are. The world’s most wanted terrorist is finally dead and U.N. actors are questioning his death in the name of human rights.