 |
| Image by Google Images |
When the Obama administration first reported Osama bin Laden's killing, the White House documented Osama's resistance. It was later confirmed that bin Laden was unarmed at the time of the raid.
This fact stirred controversy among several lawyers, academics and human rights groups, who have since questioned the legality of bin Laden's murder by Navy SEALs in Pakistan.
According to this CBS News story, White Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "resistance does not require a firearm," when asked if bin Laden was armed when they raided the compound. After being pressed by reporters on the issue, Carney claimed that the raid "met with a great deal of resistance" and that many people in the compound had weapons.
Attorney General Eric Holder shares a similar sentiment. In a story by Pete Williams, correspondent for NBC News, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the bin Laden murder operation was lawful.
Holder is quoted saying, "He was the head of al-Qaida, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement and he indicated that he would not be taken alive. The operation against bin Laden was justified as an act of national self defense."
Holder is quoted saying, "He was the head of al-Qaida, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement and he indicated that he would not be taken alive. The operation against bin Laden was justified as an act of national self defense."
An International Business Times article states that according to Holder, even if bin Laden did surrender, U.S. armed forces were justified to kill bin Laden "in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building," including several women and children who survived the raid unharmed.
Some International Law experts disagree.
According to The Guardian's article, "Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing's legality," Kent University professor Nick Grief says the bin Laden's compound attack appeared to be an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law."
In this story, lawyer Michael Mansfield expressed that "vengeance will become synonymized with justice, and that revenge will supplant 'due process."
He argued that raid events should be properly documented and verified. He also warned to not allow revenge or murder execution to replace justice.
He argued that raid events should be properly documented and verified. He also warned to not allow revenge or murder execution to replace justice.
The Guardian also mentions Claudio Cordone, senior director at Amnesty International, who argues the death of bin Laden will "put an end in his role in organizing or inspiring such criminal acts."
However, Cordone suggests the cooperation of US and Pakistani governments for "greater clarification about the events that led to the death of Osama bin Laden."
However, Cordone suggests the cooperation of US and Pakistani governments for "greater clarification about the events that led to the death of Osama bin Laden."
Some feel like the United States has taken unethical liberties to killing a dangerous although unarmed and/or surrendered terrorist. How could they explain justice and ethics to the thousands of victims' families from September 11th?
On what basis should justice and fairness be determined?
