A: I think that the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done, in those circumstances. I think it is also true that the different versions of events that have emerged in recent days have not done a great deal to help here. I don’t know the full details anymore than anyone else does but I do believe that in such circumstance when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a ‘war criminal’ as you might say in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed.
Read it all and you can see a video of his remarks here.
His ABC-ness is arguing for the pictures to be shown: “justice seen to be done”? Nope.
As for unarmed, a mere chance event when one considers
“1993 World Trade Center
1994 Bojinka, Philippine Airlines Flight 434
1998 U.S.-embassy bombings
Rizal Day Bombings in the Philippines (2000)
September 11, 2001, attacks
November 15 and November 20, 2003 Istanbul attacks
March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings
2004 Khobar massacre
July 7, 2005 London transport bombings
November 9, 2005 Amman hotel bombing
April 11, 2007 Algiers bombings
June 2, 2008 Danish-embassy bombing
2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting
2010 cargo plane bomb plot…..
and other events linked to the “unarmed” guy.
Posh and piffle, alas, as in other areas more directly under his oversight.
In the case at hand, he had to be killed. Taking him alive would have meant a trial and all that such publicity entails. And then we would have to hang him. Consider the ramifications. For all practical purposes, he had been tried in absentia and found guilty; the sentence was death.
This was hardly a kangaroo court. Larry
Oh yes, it would be oh so very much nicer if we all played by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. What world is the ABC living in?
He’s living in a world that sees what the Allied powers did at Nuremberg as exemplary. One might disagree, as I think I do, whether such a process was reasonable or even possible in this case, given that OBL might be considered not only a “war criminal” but an enemy combatant and a continuing danger to innocent lives. However it’s Nuremberg to which he is surely looking for an example of the way that “war criminals” might be dealt with. It’s worth noting that he is appropriately cautious acknowledging that he doesn’t know “the full details” and the most that he suggests is that it is, in general, “important” that justice be seen to be done.
One might reply that justice has indeed been done, in the context of a conflict of which the ABC doesn’t speak. James Turner Johnson, a leading just war theorist, has said said that the killing of OBL was “an execution of justice, plain and simple, carried out under the authority of one who can properly use bellum [war] in the service of good.â€
Speaking of the ABC, I see new “Flying Bishops” have been appointed to succeed those who resigned to join the Ordinariate:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2027/new-provincial-episcopal-visitors-announced
Taking Driver8’s point a bit further, Nuremberg was a staid affair because the allies had smashed Nazism. They had the leisure to deal with it systematically.
But while Nazism was still up and fighting, the allies were prepared to use assassination. The killing of Reinhard Heydrich, Nazi ruler of Czechoslovakia in 1942 was assassination pure and simple. Few other attempts were made against high-level Nazis, but that was because the Nazis responded with utmost savagery against the local population, not because anyone had a moral problem with assassination. That doesn’t mean anyone should do it lightly, but yes, it can be done.
It is recognised in warfare that a sniper may lie in wait and shoot his victim without giving an opportunity for surrender. That is not the same as killing a person who has surrendered.
MichaelA makes a good point that the war against Islamic jihadists is still ongoing. I agree that a trial by the inept Eric Holder would have been a disaster. Bp. Wright thinks that we should be using international courts. What a joke.
Nevertheless, it is now revealed that there were no shots fired after the SEALs entered the building and apparently his unarmed son was shot and killed while trying to protect the unarmed “dazed and confused” bin Laden who was then shot through the eye.
Rowan Williams says he is uncomfortable. Sorry, but I am, too.
It seems to be a general rule that when Rowan is uncomfortable I feel strangely *more* comfortable. There must be some great principle at work here. I wonder if I am the only one to notice this.
You’re not.
[blockquote] Nevertheless, it is now revealed that there were no shots fired after the SEALs entered the building and apparently his unarmed son was shot and killed while trying to protect the unarmed “dazed and confused†bin Laden who was then shot through the eye. [/blockquote]
Robroy, where did you get that bit about OBL’s son being shot and killed?
The last I have read (and I really don’t think we can say anything has been “revealed” when messsages are confused) is that one of his wives lunged at the SEALS and was shot in the leg.
My apologies, Robroy, the Australian newspaper published a comprehensive account from the Sunday Times this morning and I can see where I missed it – the third man who was shot on the stairs is now known to have been one of OBL’s sons.
Mind you, I don’t think he could be said to be “trying to protect OBL” – that was his wife who lunged at the SEALS in the bedroom and seems to have been fortunate to only cop a leg wound.