Image via Wikipedia
This is an article from Der Spiegel about the Bin Laden assassination. After all the rumour and innuendo dies down what we can expect is that the US will continue to lie about what really happened for what can only be reasons of world domination. However, by simply going into a foreign country and assassinating someone like Israel their close cohorts in criminal warlike activities, they have made the entire planet part of their present and future domain. All those jingoist people celebrating in an almost carnival atmosphere in the US may well come to see their folly as the US calls on and is probably forced to call on every reserve it has as it descends into the darkness of the despair that being the self appointed world policeman comes with. With further outbreaks of war a certainty as the US continues to act in this manner slowly but surely the mounting toll of death to the US will become at first an uneconomic practice for those think that all that really matters is money, to a further trend to seeing the losses and then deciding that there has been something immoral in the conduct of the US. It all takes time.
On a scale of evolutionary changes the human race is fast becoming an example of a species doomed to extinction from the very start. We now have become as David Suzuki said so clearly, a Force of Nature. With that comes the ability to accelerate this process to somewhere within this century, particularly you combine the extremely negative environmental and ecological rffects of the human species with the complete anti-social aspects of actions between members of the species. All that adds up to is annihilation on a truly horrendous scale. Those in the elite probably think they can together with the capital and imperial project, withstand huge population losses because there are simply too many people on the planet. However, there are too many people to sustain the ridiculous avarice and greed the elites possess. If you look at the whole of the planet there is room for all as long as one group does not as we have decide to pull the planet apart for pure and utter greed. The options are running out and probably already have it may become a matter of why try if we can not avoid the inevitable consequences of our own actions.
But there is room for hope. This species could at least put up a fight not for hegemony as is happening across and around the planet, but for survival. That will demand a different attitude and style of thought, particularly in the way we treat our own kind. Where the hegemons after Darwin used that basic idea as a justification for murder and slaughter on a planetary basis which Darwin never saw it as. The whole idea of survival of the fittest was not in his observations. Peter Kropotkin in the midst of the slaughter saw the acute need for Mutual Aid, because it was that principle which flows from evolutionary principles. Not the slaughter of whoever gets in the way of an acquisitive hegemony. Species are in fact remarkable for their ability to assist each other and to leave the forces of nature in as undisturbed a state as possible. In this sense all the talk of affordable solutions is pure propaganda and media stimulated nonsense issuing from the minds of feeble politicians who have no love, concern or care for their fellow man only a wretched need and desire to stay elected.
These thoughts may seem a bit far from what follows but anyone looking to the future really needs to bring critical analysis into play at all and any cost. Faint hearted feigned proposition that are only put forward to calm the electorate down never work and deserve outright condemnation of both the policy and the speakers who add their voice to lies and deceptions. Yes it will not be an easy task but just try looking at a child when you feel like saying that it’s all to hard and then explain why because of your own failings they are the ones who must suffer the most. Honesty and fairness are very valuable tools in creating an optimal environment for survival we should use the tools now and not later. A good start to to raise your voices against all wars, no matter how good they mat seem, no matter how convinced the people who promote these wars seem. A military mind is a sick one, where else can you find someone residing in the comfort of killing but in an armed force. George Ikners ikners.com a WordPress site
What International Law Says about the Killing of Bin Laden
Terrorists, even Osama bin Laden, are humans. As such, they have rights; human rights. Among these rights are the right to life, the right to humane treatment and the right to a fair trial. Fundamental human rights remain valid even in a state of emergency; they are impervious to such exceptions.
In peacetime, the right to life can only be limited in extraordinary circumstances, in particular by reason of self defense. If it is true that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, self defense in response to an unlawful attack on the part of entering US Special Forces can be ruled out. Clearly, such an operation takes place under extreme pressure and it is conceivable that the Special Forces acted on the mistaken belief that they were under attack by bin Laden or his people — criminal lawyers call this “putative self defense” — but this would not make the killing lawful. It would only cast light on the mental state of the troops in question, and thus their culpability.
Yet, these soldiers are especially trained for such an operation, they are the elite of the elite. If we cannot demand restraint in the use of force from them, then we can’t demand it from anybody — not from the ordinary policeman in the street nor from the citizen defending his life or home. From this perspective, it seems unlikely that they shot bin Laden out of fear or by mistake. Rather they knew perfectly well what they were doing and killed him wantonly and willingly.
Why Are Al-Qaida Criminals Treated Differently?
Here is the problem. A targeted killing of a terrorist does not, contrary to what US President Barack Obama has suggested, do a service to justice; rather, it runs contrary to it. A state governed by the rule of law, treats even its enemies humanely. It arrests terrorists and brings them before a court. This is exactly what Germany did with the Red Army Faction (RAF) and what it does today with al-Qaida members. This is what the US did in Nuremberg with the Nazis and what it promotes all over the world with other criminals against mankind. Why are the criminals of al-Qaida treated differently?
Should their guilt be established by way of a fair trial, they can be punished with severe sentences, including in some countries like the US, with the death penalty. The trial must come first, though. A killing in the absence of a fair trial constitutes an extra-judicial or extra-legal execution, which is unworthy of a state ruled by law (Rechtsstaat). Indeed, it is an act for which countries not ruled by law (Unrechtsstaaten) are charged before human rights bodies. Those who carry out or approve such extra-judicial killings forfeit the right to reproach authoritarian states for the very same practices.
War, i.e. an “armed conflict” under International Humanitarian Law, presents a different legal situation. In such circumstances, people can lawfully be killed when they directly participate in hostilities. The prohibition on killing is suspended in international armed conflicts for combatants and in non-international armed conflicts for so-called fighters or de facto combatants.
These actors can, under specific conditions, also be the subjects of targeted killings. The most important condition is that the principle of proportionality is complied with, i.e. less severe measures (such as arrest) are to be preferred and unnecessary civilian victims must be avoided. If a targeted killing occurs in foreign territory, the territorial state must consent to the operation; otherwise the action amounts to a violation of state sovereignty, prohibited by Public International Law.
The Misleading Rhetoric of the “War on Terror”
None of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the fight against international terrorism, and in particular al-Qaida (Res. 1267 of 1999 to Res. 1974 of 2011), authorize the carrying out of operations on foreign territory, nor the arrest, and even less the killing, of (suspected) terrorists. These resolutions can, at best, be read, in line with the various Terrorism Conventions, as allowing the extradition or prosecution (aut dedere aut iudicare) of terrorism suspects.
In the case at hand, the targeted killing was not permitted since the US — contrary to the misleading rhetoric of “the war on terror” — is not involved in an armed conflict with al-Qaida. A loose and decentralised terrorist network does not fulfil the criteria for classification as a party to a conflict within the context of International Humanitarian Law. It lacks, above all, a centralized and hierarchical military command structure and the control of a defined territory.
Were we nevertheless to proclaim an international armed conflict against al-Qaida, the whole world would become a battlefield and the classic understanding of an armed conflict as being on a defined state territory and thus involving limited military confrontation, would be extended so as to know no bounds. While one cannot deny that armed conflicts can entail “spill over effects,” such as via the retreat of one of the parties to the conflict into the territory of a neighboring state (as, for example, occurred when the Taliban fled from Afghanistan to neighboring Pakistan), the extra-territorial reach of such conflicts always reverts back to the original territorial armed conflict. Otherwise, the whole world would be turned into a battlefield with unforeseeable consequences.
Ultimately, this would lead to a worldwide “war on terror” involving all states where “terrorists” reside without them ever having entered into a formal armed conflict with the state waging this war. Indeed, this has been the position of the US government since Sept. 11, 2001. To the disappointment of many, the Obama administration has forcefully reconfirmed this position by killing bin Laden and by the killing of many alleged al-Qaida members (and civilians) before him by the increased use of predator drones.
Triumphing over the Terrorist Injustice
One may be able to understand this position in the light of Sept., 11 and what it did to the self-esteem of the US, the world’s only superpower, humiliated as never before. But does this justify carrying out a policy which deliberately sidesteps the recognized principles of international humanitarian law?
Lastly, even if one wanted, for the sake of argument, to suppose the existence of an armed conflict between the US and al-Qaida, only those directly involved in the hostilities could be subject to military attack. They themselves must carry out military operations, command such operations or authoritatively plan them. They must further carry out a “continuous combat function.” This is also in no way certain as regards bin Laden, since many believe he was only the spiritual leader of al-Qaida and had no influence on concrete military operations. The video footage recently released by the US seems to confirm this view.
Beyond these complex and indeed contentious legal questions, lies the much more fundamental issue as to whether the Western world really wants to deprive their terrorist enemies of their right to life and other fundamental human rights and declare them military fair game. To ask the question is to answer it in the negative. The moral and political superiority of a free and democratic society dictates that it treats its enemies as persons with minimal rights and does not do as the enemy does — act with barbarism and contempt for mankind.
It does not wage “war” against terrorists, but combats them with a fair and proportional criminal law, in line with the rule of law. This does not exclude the use of force and even the killing of terrorists as ultima ratio but only respecting the rules and conditions set out above. This alone ensures the kind of justice that has been promoted particularly by the US since Nuremberg — a kind of justice which many of us thought President Obama had resuscitated. This is the only foundation from which we can triumph over the terrorist injustice.
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
Related articles
- Osama Bin Laden Was Planning to Assassinate President Obama: “It Was Me or Him!” Obama Said! (socyberty.com)
- Assassinating Bin Laden may prove a lot more costly than the US thought. It was far from a slam dunk re-election effort (ikners.com)
- No active plots found for Bin Laden (ikners.com)
- With Bin Laden the US was ready for a fight with Pakistan to get out (ikners.com)
- Ex-Afghan spy chief: I knew where bin Laden was (thenewstribune.com)
- Osama BIN Laden Plotted a Mega Attack to Wipe OUT ALL Americans OUT of THE Middle East (socyberty.com)
- Bin Laden bled U.S. of a cool trillion (search.japantimes.co.jp)
- Osama Bin Laden Took Matters Into His Own Hand: Pornography Discovered At Compound. (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
- Drones soon to be everywhere. Do you have one in your backyard? (ikners.com)
- We must start an anti drone campaign. They represent the ultimate symptom of the cancer of the goal of the hegemons (ikners.com)
- Assassinations and murder seen as a way to get square (ikners.com)
- Is there a way out? Where is the Exit? Which light do you follow? (ikners.com)
- The truth about our not so selfish genes (telegraph.co.uk)
- Efficient Slaughter (theness.com)
- When was the human species separated from nature? (beinghuman.blogs.fi)
- Who is there to kill as a HVT (High Value Target)? Where the WARBUCK starts (ikners.com)
- RUSH Featured On Playlist For The Planet Compilation (bravewords.com)
- Suzuki at 75: An elder for the planet (cbc.ca)
- Darwin meets the citizen scientists (3quarksdaily.com)
- Creationists Have An Unfair Advantage But They’re Still Wrong (psychologytoday.com)
- Drones and hegemony the new future is here. (ikners.com)
- The Capital Project and Fascism (ikners.com)
- Report shows several rabbit species under threat of extinction (theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com)
- David Suzuki: Force of Nature (patspapers.com)
- Darwin: 150 Years of Evolutionary Thinking (milkandcookies.com)
- Bin Laden’s wives (ikners.com)
- Mom Power by Cindy Sheehan (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
- What was significant to Darwin about the fauna and flora of the Galápagos Islands (wiki.answers.com)
- How Evolutionary Thinking Attempts To Counter Its Critics (thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com)
- Why The Atlantic’s 1860 Review Was a Key Victory for Darwin (theatlantic.com)
- Chomsky article on May Day (ikners.com)
- What is the greatest threat to the survival of the human species (wiki.answers.com)
- Are humans a parasitic species? (greenanswers.com)
- Was killing bin Laden legal? (salon.com)
- Der Spiegel and International Law (volokh.com)
- Estulin: Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Freddie – The David Suzuki of Cats (thisneedstostop.com)
- Another cost effectiveness style article on assassinating terrorists. Or it might be alright if comes in within budget. (ikners.com)
- Capturing bin Laden ‘would unleash hell’ (worldtruthtoday.com)
- VIDEO: US: Bin Laden ‘not assassinated’ (bbc.co.uk)
- Naive, Like Our Grandparents: (brothersjuddblog.com)
- There are thousands of successors to Bin Laden available this is one of them. If we just got out out none would be needed. (ikners.com)
- Bin Laden Raid Garners Mixed Reactions In Europe (huffingtonpost.com)
- Richard Clarke: Capturing Bin Laden ‘Not One Of Their Priorities’ For Clinton, Bush (mediaite.com)
- Captured bin Laden Intelligence Disses Veep (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Capturing bin Laden ‘would unleash hell’ (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
