There has been a lot of debate about the killing of Bin Laden and in particular on 2nd May 2011 in Aptabad, Pakistan the early hours of Bin Laden was killed in a confrontation between the US forces and the men in his compound.
It appears that there has been much debate and a mystery still remains that his body was buried at sea and yet he was one of the most wanted terrorists in the world at the very least he should have been tried and terrorism crimes by the International Court. The President of the USA mad an opening statement and said that 'justice has been done.' Has justice been done? Raised interesting questions and one of the most important questions that it raised from a legal perspective is whether it is possible to safe guard the rule of law while applying it selectively? The killing of Bin Laden was a cathartic experience for the US, and bought a degree of welcome closure to those bereaved in 9/11. There had been much celebrations in the US after the killing of Bin Laden. Prominent QC, Jeffery Robertson had put together a thoughtful piece in the Independent [tinyurl.com/6dvyur9w]. He claimed it was 'absurd', for former law profession Barack Obama to claim 'justice was done' by means of summary execution. The best way to have dealt with this matter would have been for the UN Security Council to try and in The Hague with international Judges providing a fair trial. Lucy Robertson recalls that Britain's government wanted the Nazi leadership executed within hour of capture in 1945, but were restrained by US President Truman. Justice has to be seen to be done, and was - at Nuremberg. Questions what has changed since then and whether it is possible to safeguard the rule of law while applying selectively. These are the questions to be raised and deserve to be responded. |