Osama Bin Laden: Dead

[Norfolk Born]

I assume he was dispatched under the 'first past the post system', rather than being offered any alternatives?

[Nick Armstrong]

Well said, Mr Pee. The naivety of some of the posters on this forum is breathtaking - nay worrying- in it's comprehensive depth and utter disregard for reality.

It is, isn't it? I have been dumbstruck by some of the idiotic ramblings from supposedly intelligent individuals.

Blimey is this thread rattling on and on and round and round? It's pretty clear to me that the Chuckle Brothers above are just trying to wind everyone up.

One has to assume (with an ounce of charity) that they are trolls amusing themselves by getting a rise out of people, aren't they? Don't feed them!

If they do actually believe what they write then no amount of common sense and logical argument is going to locate their marbles for them.

Either way, my heart sinks when I see this thread back at the top of the 'What's New' list.... (He says, putting it back up there But it's for the last time!)

OK another listen to my new CD of Pappano conducting Rachmaninov 2 Remember folks? Radio 3? Classical music?

[Flosshilde]

Let's face it, the US could just have easily sent a laser-targeted bomb or cruise missile into his compound. Then all this pointless waffle about whether he was armed or not would have been even less relevant.

But not the discussion about whether it was legal, or whether the USA govt was justified in taking the law into its own hands or not. Which is the basis of the discussion. You, Mr Pee, believe that vigilanteism & acting outside the law is the correct thing to do; most of the rest of us believe that it isn't.

[Mr Pee]

OK another listen to my new CD of Pappano conducting Rachmaninov 2

Oh, that's an excellent new recording by Pappano. The best Rach 2 I've heard for many a year!

[Mr Pee]

Perhaps, to present Mr Pee with another case, he would like to tell us if he believes that the police officer, Simon Harwood, who's actions may have resulted in the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson, should be imprisoned without the benefit of a trial?

Of course not. And it's not a valid comparison.

Although it seems that in future police officers will need to consult the full medical history of every person they could conceivably come into contact with so that they know exactly how to approach them.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

meanwhile what next .... a sane argument based on evidence for withdrawal from Afg and Iraq and support the Arab Spring big time

OBL was an historic figure of marginal importance now, except to the people who suffered and their families and the presidential electoral cycle ... actually the american legal system can be a lot worse than an out of hand killing ....

Londonistan and its success in recruiting terrorists arose in part from the observances of due legal process and rights .... as Mr Berlin said, some values are just plain incompatible ... i hover in a tense uncertainty about it all, glad i do not have to decide ... suppose those two Landrovers full of gas, petrol and explosives had rammed into the airports before detonating, or a shopping centre?


it is a wonder to me that the Arab Spring is driven by the demand for Respect and Dignity .... and Liberty ...truly admirable virtues with a notably viral impact, i do hope the Coal Party's recent conversion [pace Hague on the EU role] is genuine and lasting ...

we who live with affordable bread and circuses would do well to realise that many do not, and poverty and starvation grind dignity to dust ...

it does not appear to me that the price of bread was on OBL and his AlQ pals' agenda .... this piece makes an interesting point about how clinically depressed many actual terrorists are

[amateur51]

Of course not. And it's not a valid comparison.

Although it seems that in future police officers will need to consult the full medical history of every person they could conceivably come into contact with so that they know exactly how to approach them.

Here we go again ... just saying it's not a valid comparison don't make it so, Mr Pee

You really are a dumbo when it comes to debating ( but then, if you haven't got an argument to offer in support your views, I suppose it's understandable )

I think Caliban's right - you're a troll and so off with you, back under the bridge!

Though it does give me cause to reflect on the wisdom of universal suffrage in Mr Pee's case

[Mahlerei]

It seems to me that what the OBL and Tomlinson cases demonstrate - in their own way - is an abuse of power. That PC had no right to manhandle a member of the public that way and the US had no right to violate another country's borders and summarily execute OBL in front of his daughter. How can that possibly be a cause for celebration, when we behave in such an arbitrary and vicious way?

[amateur51]

It seems to me that what the OBL and Tomlinson cases demonstrate - in their own way - is an abuse of power. That PC had no right to manhandle a member of the public that way and the US had no right to violate another country's borders and summarily execute OBL in front of his daughter. How can that possibly be a cause for celebration, when we behave in such an arbitrary and vicious way?

Spot on, Mahlerei and how does this play with countries/societies that may wish us ill in the light of past abuses of power?

Both USA and UK appear to be places where the powerful are above the law, where the very legal and democratic values that we recommend to other countries and societies as being something special, something that marks us out as special too, are ultimately suspended where the State is concerned.

It all makes me feel very angry ... angry and sad

[aeolium]

Let's try to be a bit more specific here. I am not sure we have heard clearly the reasons behind peoples views?

1. Is there anyone who doesn't believe that there is sufficient evidence for bin Laden arranging the slaughter of many?

I doubt there is anyone in that category posting on this thread, if indeed anywhere.

2. Does this make a difference morally, rather than in purely legislative terms, in terms of his earthly rights?

We are not concerned here with any rights he may have in morality, which may be in dispute, but his rights under international law, which is a legal code governing the conduct of people and governments within and between nations.

3. He does not appear to have been a taxpayer or an identifiable citizen of any country. Do rights come with responsibilities?

His legal or tax status has no bearing on his right as a human being to be protected from unlawful killing. Neither you nor anyone else would be entitled to shoot a stateless person whom you encountered unless that person directly threatened you and it was a question of self-defence.

4. Is the situation different from the murder of the Gaddafi children? In what ways?

It is different at least to this extent, that those responsible for that murder have claimed that they did not intend it and that it was an unintentional consequence of the action to protect civilians in Libya.

5. Had he been imprisoned, should those who had relatives murdered have been exempted from the costs?

I am not aware of any precedent for that. The huge expense involved in the long imprisonment of Rudolf Hess was presumably incurred by the taxpayers of the four victorious powers after the Second World War, including relatives of many who suffered as a result of decisions Hess took or participated in.

6. Would it have been better if unelected judges rather than democratically elected politicians had determined the outcome?

No. Judges are there to enforce the law. Politicians determine policy and strategy and also the law to be enforced. The code of international law which judges enforce has arisen largely as a result of the treaties and resolutions created by 'democratically elected' politicians, because they know the world is a much more dangerous place if it does not have that law.

7. Should any arguments either way for future world harmony have been a factor in the decision on how best to deal?

Possibly. But whatever course was adopted, it ought to have complied with international law, not least the law stating that a country's sovereignty should not be violated without the authorisation of the international community through the UN.

8. Should his siblings have had any say in the best strategy and what might have been their views?

No. I have no idea about their views.

9. Are there any world leaders who have expressed outrage about the outcome?

I am not aware of any. Most world leaders are invariably reluctant to say anything that might offend the world's most powerful superpower, especially if they are dependent on economic or military aid from that superpower. Large powers like China and Russia will be happy to see this kind of summary action as they have their own terrorist or insurgent threats which they may well wish to deal with in an equally summary way, and they know that any criticism of that will be less credible, at least from the USA.

10. To what extent was he a symbol of terrorism to bully and to what extent the crucial ringleader?

He may once have been a powerful symbol but he had for some time been superseded, and the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have changed the agenda from that which al-Qaeda wished to set.

[amateur51]

Excellent posting #220 aeolium: intelligible, intelligent, well-informed, well-argued & succinct responses - many thanks indeed!

[Mr Pee]

Don't feed the troll from West Sussex- you know it makes sense

A troll? Here, in leafy West Sussex, home to Glorious Goodwood, Arundel Castle, seat of The Duke of Norfolk, Polo at Cowdray, and the newly created South Downs National Park?? The very idea.

Although if there is one, at least he'd be a nice middle-class one, who knew how to hold a knife and fork properly. Not like those nasty Northern trolls. I'm told they eat puddings made from blood, and fly whippets at the weekend.

[Lateralthinking1]

aeolium - Thank you for addressing my comments so thoroughly. I am not a million miles from your perspective. It seems to me sadly that almost every leader abuses power. I have sensed in both Cameron and Hague's statements a barely concealed glee, typical of the naturally destructive, that says as much about them as it does the target. Of course, the target in that way was very similar. By contrast, we the humble onlookers are sufficiently free of the burdens to be able to consider matters more fairly.

However:

1. While I recognise that the application of morality is generally difficult because it is so open to interpretation, it would be wrong to suggest that international law isn't also essentially interpretive. Arguably, morality may be more clear-cut than the law in exceptional circumstances - for example, where every known government in the world is approximately of a similar viewpoint on the principal issue. I believe that this was the case here.

2. I do consider actually that bin Laden threatened me directly, unless you would argue that those with the influence to turn people into bombers and support them are only ever indirectly threatening. Every day for ten years I travelled into a mainline London station and sat in the headquarters of a Government department not knowing whether he would get his wishes. Our building was always on alert. Over time, this affected my health.

3. The stateless are only ever stateless in certain respects. By definition, if you live in a country, you live in a state. It is my strong belief that morally you can only expect and insist on rights if you also exercise responsibilities. For example, it is a greater abuse of power to have people who have played a role as citizens living on the streets until their deaths or to give them inadequate or inept health provision leading effectively to their murder.

4. It is very questionable whether the killing of Gaddafis children complies with the international legal agreement on Libya. If it does, then one needs to bear in mind that innocent Pakistani citizens were at risk from bin Laden too and also accept the US arguments that it was a case of kill or capture. You can't easily pick and choose who and what to believe in not wholly dissimilar circumstances.

5. I think the failure here is not so much in the American action as in the absence of any prior UN agreement to authorise intervention irrespective of sovereignty. The exceptional nature of this case was such that it could have been achieved in far less than a decade with suitable terms. The entire international community is to be blamed for not attempting to do so.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well to just follow through on a legalistic approach ... it is presumably the case that he was actively engaged in promoting and planning actions that would cause the deaths of American and other citizens of the UK Europe Iraq etc at the time of the raid, there was armed resistance to the entry of ft the US team ... might be quite hard to prove that he was anything other than shot resisting arrest during the execution of a crime ... and it would be hard to prove the intent to just kill, not arrest him ... prudent orders would have indicated arrest with no risk to US personnel to be countenanced ... reasonable in the circumstances

Pakistan might have a beef, but as Tariq Ali points out, OBL was the cause of major funding for the Pakistan military and ISI from the USA and they might not want to wash their linen in any public judicial forum and apparently did not want their golden goose captured or killed ....

an American commentator i read on the Atlantic i think, points out that Obama has been not arresting terror suspects, but drone bombing them far more than the previous administration ... ie kill not capture, so the argument as ever could swing back and forth .....

i find faith in the UN touching ... it is a corrupt can of worms if ever there was, China or Russia would sabotage any such agreement .... it's sole usefulness resides in the fact that it is all there is .... not that it is any good ....the US specifically excludes itself from much international law that it sees as against its interests and seeks to extend its own jurisdiction .... we still live in an age of imperial dominance ... and we are part of the international community that keeps on voting in the politicians who do it eh ....



do you recall the murder trial a few years back; a father shot a lorry driver who had killed his daughter through gross negligence, the driver was subsequently grotesquely defiant to the girl's family and received a nothing sentence for his driving behaviour ... and then the father shot him .... the jury acquitted the father .... he had it coming was the view, i guess that is how in the end we shall feel about OBL ...

[doversoul1]

Lateralthinking1
1. Morality and laws: Lawyers interpret laws. That’s their job. Moral cannot be interpreted as there is no ‘original’ to interpret. It’s a consensus of a society of the particular time and place.
2. OBL being a direct threat: I prefer not to be so troubled by one in a million chance of misfortune.
3. Statelessness: it is a legal status. You are either stateless or you are not stateless. Years ago, a child who was born in Japan from a Japanese mother and a British father became automatically stateless because of the nationality laws of the two counties concerned. It has nothing to do with what you do in the country where you happen to live.
4. The killing of Gaddafis children: Has anyone said it was not illegal?
5. Intervention: to what or into where? Exceptional nature: are there any criteria for exceptionality?

The sheer thought of the President of the United States actually watching a man being killed, filmed live (dead) and probably knowing what was to happen, makes me quite sick.