Osama bin Laden dead

[SrChulo]

I always thought that, in America at least, justice required a trial?

If there were an American serial killer running around the US that killed thousands of people.... you can bet that police would be told to use deadly force.

[fredv3b]

True. That something was justified by necessity doesn't make it justice.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that if bin Laden had been captured rather than killed, the trial would have been fraught with difficulty. Starting with the question of the legality of his arrest, on another countries sovereign soil without the permission of its government or courts.

[fenris]

seems again that we have a international law for all and a special international law for the US

[fredv3b]

What is 'International Law' and why should the U.S. abide by it?

[Wintereis]

I always thought that, in America at least, justice required a trial?

Required a trial? Ha! I don't know what history books you've been reading, but they are certainly not any of the histories of this planet.

[fredv3b]

So what are trials for?

[fenris]

What is 'International Law' and why should the U.S. abide by it?

the geneva convention

human rights

territorial principle


Pakistan and the US have signed the geneva conventions

[fredv3b]

International agreements which are only signed are gentleman's agreements and are not enforceable by legal means. I do not see how they can reasonably be described as laws.

The Geneva conventions have been (according to your link) ratified by both the U.S. and Pakistan therefore the are domestic laws. I will happily accept them being described as international laws.

Unfortunately, I am not sure how the Geneva conventions in this instance. I would be grateful if anyone could explain.

[Wintereis]

Fenris, I don't think the United States is the only one who is guilty of ignoring international agreements. Indeed, there are two famous and lawful extradition cases where EU states refused to extradite to the United States. One for something as dispicable as Child molestation. So, the cookie crumbles. Though, it is likely that Pakistan was knowingly harboring a confessed terrorist. So, I really don't think they have the moral high ground in this situation. But, perhaps you would have preffered the United States and Russia not entering into Germany so many years ago to try and aprehend (dead or alive) another such malignancy in human form.

[Wintereis]

[FONT=&quot]Fred, what are trials for? Trials are for the pursuit of the ideal of justice. But--as you know and as Plato states and as Derrida reaffirms--by definition, the ideal is unattainable. I'm saying that this world has a very long history of injustice. It has a fairly long history of achieving just in its innate or natural form. It has a very limited history in implementing a constitutional or ideal justice based in empiricism. Frankly, Fred, since there was a firefight involved, I doubt that a trial could ever have occurred. I don't think he would have allowed himself to be taken alive. Though, I think it would have actually been a greater favor to the ideals of the western world which, of course, Osama Bin Laden was diametrically opposed. But as you state, there would naturally be issues with sovereignty. [/FONT]