Action by foreign governments targeting individuals on sovereign territory is commonplace but, as I understand it, illegal under international law. Was Obama right to order the action leading to the execution of bin Laden and others without a fair trial to establish culpability relating to 9/11 and other atrocities? The reason I'm suggesting this topic as a thread for discussion is because like most I'm prepared to go along with it as natural justice without thinking about the many implications and my own hypocrisy in so doing. The chance to give it a proper airing will help me for one work out what I really think and move on. Anyone care to join me?
The Bin Laden issue is really complicated...There's a few things that block with me... He wasn't a nice person, he planned to kill/killed thousands of people, which isn't cool. But at the same time he was the symbolic leader of a resistance movement that was trying to challenge US dominance of the world, (and growing up in France gave me an insight into "resistance" passion), so he was the "bad guy" that the US needed. I don't really know what to think of it, mainly because billions of dollars have been spent trying to catch him that could have served a better purpose, and the US has arguably caused more deaths trying to catch him that he can actually caused himself...
Until we know the facts, if ever we know the facts, we won't be able to decide. What strikes me as strange is that Obama seems quite happy that 'justice was done', without seeming to care that justice was done in a judicial way. Whether bin Laden was given the chance to be arrested and tried for his crimes i doubt we'll ever know. That bothers me. Obviously i could not fathom condoning anything he did, but he was a man, and by my understanding, a democratic society gives every man a right to a fair trial. Not that his would have been fair, but it's got to be fairer than killing him so that Obama can take it upon himself to declare that 'justice has been done.'.
I hardly think that there would have been any jury in the world that could be brought together to give Bin Laden a "fair trial". There are some people like Hitler who you basically just have to accept is found guilty by common acclaim - and I am sure this applies to BL. A trial would have been pretty certain to lead to more deaths - I will not lose any sleep over the fact that he is no longer in this World - however the sight of people in the US actively jumping for joy at another man's death is not exactly pleasant.
i was sickened by it Leonardo...those scenes were not at all pleasant. i agree about the trial thing, like i said, likely not to be fair, but for Obama, President of a democratic country, to claim that he had decided that killing him was justice, made me very uncomfortable. The fact is, 10 years after 9/11, Terrorism has moved on, and by all accounts, bin Laden was not the important target he once was. To my mind, killing him was a very expensive way for the USA to say "we said we'd get him, and though it took millions of dollars and cost too many lives, we did what we set out to do". i'm not comfortable with that either.
Gotta love a cynic ...someone said the other day it was timed to take the publicity off the wedding! lol
On the other hand he was responsible for a lot of death and destruction ,so in the end he got his come uppance.
Quite a difficult issue this one. In an ideal world he should have been captured and put on trial - problem with this is that it creates a living martyr that could attract a lot of hostage taking and more terrorist attacks. For example would he be tried in the US or in The Hague? It really should have been in The Hague, but if you were Dutch, would you want that on your doorstep? If he was found guilty, where would he be held in jail? Again who would want that in their country? Personally, whilst I will not miss the passing of him, I am very uneasy about the facts now coming out as to the way he was killed - does behaving like a terrorist not make you a terrorist. So IMO, he should have been put on trial with a very open coverage of the events and evidence against him and if found guilty, locked away in a very deep remote hole...western democracy should be mature enough to live with the consequences.
I think the financial issue of a trial and keeping him locked up and secure might have been an issue! I think it was morally wrong the way this op was done , but it was probably the cheaper way of achieving the desired conclusion .
Have to say that there would, in all probability, be a compelling argument against him having a trial. I've lost track of the number of times he has openly declared his intentions and claimed responsibility for atrocities - effectively pleading guilty before the event. He made his own bed as the saying goes - and a bit messily if the news pictures that flashed around the world are anything to go by! I suspect that Justice has only partially been served too - there will be more 'executions' to follow I reckon. And I for one have no plans to be flying to the USA anytime soon!
Probably a wise decision BB I think there will be more attempts at retribution ,Now we will see how much we have weakened the Al queada organisation as a whole! My main concern is the Hydra effect ,cut of its head and 2 more replace it!
Not sure that the word 'weakened' applies, norway - strengthened may be more appropriate. And, I'm hoping, 'they' instead of 'we'!
Justice; an eye for an eye. He may have had nice eyes, been a good family man and now be a martyr to some but Osama bin Laden followed a particularly fundamental form of islam called wahhabi (founded on the commentaries on islam of Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, and regarded as extreme by sunnis), and to non-moslems he was the devil. To me it matters not that he had no trial (did the people whos deaths he had a hand in stand any chance – Twin Towers for example?), it also matters not that the people who killed him worked for the CIA, they could have been from ISI, Mossad, MI6, KGB, another agency or even dissidents from his own group. He needed to be removed from the world. There will be replacements but they can be dealt with too. If you need reminding here are three excerpts from the Qu’ran dealing with non-believers. 4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. 8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
I love it when people justify killing by "an eye for an eye". For a start it was not supposed to be egging people on to get revenge but was actually trying to stop people killing for an eye. It was a limiter not a direction to get even. Secondly it was only supposed to refer to the Courts. Thirdly when people quote that they are quoting the Old Testament.. For Christians I would have thought they would follow Christ's teachings like "turn the other cheek", "if a man forces you to go a mile, go another mile" and also his endorsement of the Ten Commandments which state Thou Shalt not Kill. The whole point about Christianity surely is that the New Testament expands and modifies the (Jewish) Old Testament. If anyone believes they could envisage Christ himself killling or endorsing killing and can show me where Christ does this they will suprise me greatly. If not then I stand by my amazement that any Christian can justify killing. Surely if you were a Christian you would have faith in God to decide when a man dies. Rant over
I will never condone taking another person's life, but this was never going to end in any other way! There was no way this would ever end up by ObL having a trial... where would he be held on trial? At what expense? Who would be judging him and deciding his fate? America 'needed' the figure-head of 9/11 to be taken care of, and many will probably now feel they can move on! The America Government needed to justify the expense of tracking him down, hoping they can put an end to this particular 'war on terror'. There will be many conspiracy theories, most of which will be absolute nonsense while others may sound plausible. America (and probably the Western world) will need to be on high alert... There will be a successor, and this person won't be hiding. They will want to continue what they feel is a just cause, probably want 'revenge' and there wll be a new 'public enemy No.1' soon enough. Sorry, I'm sure many will come across better than I ever could... But this is by no means the end!!
Perhaps not committing the act nor endorsing it, but where does allowing senseless-slaughter-whilst-standing-by-doing-nothing fit in? If, as is apparently believed, he endorsed the Commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' but failed to come up with a viable option to counteract those who ignored it, then his ability to think things through must be severely in question. Or perhaps he simply never imagined that what is basically a commonsense rule for living for the times in which he is claimed to have lived, would never be manageable in a world such as we have today. The thought of having a death penalty in our statutes sits quite comfortably with me. I'm not particularly driven by the 'eye for an eye' principle - I'm more concerned with having a society where the streets are safe to be walked and children can play 'unhindered' - from which you can safely assume that I would advocate capital punishment for a lot more than murder! You ask that Christians would surely have faith in God to decide when a man dies? Whilst I don't actually believe in God (but still manage to consider myself as Christian in terms of my outlook on life), I'd retort that who is to say that the hand of God is not behind those acts of retribution?
Bin Laden was very much a special case. I always was and always will be vehemently against the Iraq war. But while in my opinion Saddam couldn't really have a fair trial either, it was nonetheless true to say that the majority of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam to be removed and tried, and that he had committed crimes that civilian Iraqis would have been put to death for. With Bin Laden, his own people (Saudi Arabia) refused to have anything to do with him. Which is a shame, as I think Bin Laden being tried and presumably executed in Saudi Arabia would have done wonders for world peace. Afghanistan wouldn't have been an appropriate place to try him: all he did there was accept the hospitality of the Taliban (who are far less unpopular than Saddam), fight a predominantly defensive war (it's clear now that he has had little or nothing to do with actions on the ground in the last six or seven years), and set up training camps for people who wanted to be trained. Taking him to The Hague or America would have been far more counterproductive than killing him. So, while I agree that it was technically a war crime, pragmatically I don't see what else could have been done.
