Today's Times letters pages sum up the views of many of us rather well
"May 7 2011 12:01AM
The depth of our commitment to ethical principles is not tested by the easy cases but the most difficult
Sir, Widespread American delight in the death of Osama bin Laden is not the voice of justice rightly served: it is the thrill of revenge successfully accomplished. It is profoundly sad but true that the 9/11 victims and their surviving families have been brought vengeance by this act, not justice. No, justice, as wisely and comprehensively defined by the US Constitution and US legal system, required bin Laden to be brought to trial, and subjected to the due process of law. The depth of our commitment to ethical principles is not tested by the easy cases but the most difficult.
Moreover, the decision to call this operation ?Geronimo? has been rightly criticised. Imagine a nuclear missile called ?Jesus? or a blockbuster bomb called ?Mohammed?. To appropriate the name of the Apache leader, knowing how Native Americans were devastated, cheated and abused, is a demonstration of a chilling sickness in the American psyche one would have hoped the President would have risen above.
Keith Farman
St Albans, Herts
Sir, When the whoop-haws and high-fives have subsided, I wonder whether moderate Americans will come to regret the slaying of Osama bin Laden. History shows no justification for sanctioning this state execution without trial. Bin Laden was undoubtedly evil. But any worse than Hitler?s henchmen? Yet, even they had their Nuremberg to satisfy the democratic process, before being ordered to the gallows.
The US spent 20 years fashioning bin Laden as its bogeyman, only to transform him into a martyr in 40 minutes. I fear the repercussions will outlive many a generation.
Garry Doolan
Port Sunlight, Merseyside
Sir, I beg to differ with your leading article (?Justice Served?, May 6). This example of ?rough justice? is not just, it?s capital punishment. Even a military background does not prevent me feeling very uncomfortable about it.
Rear Admiral Roy Clare
Tollesbury, Essex
Sir, Your leading article describes al-Qaeda as ?a grave threat to American ? and indeed to most of the planet?s ? citizens?. Such a statement is irresponsible and absurd. How could this be possible? Even the atrocity of 9/11 killed 3,000 people out of a population of 300 million.
The chief aim of terrorism is to spread terror. l am unclear why you underwrite this aim with the hysterical language of your editorial.
Jonathan Cahill
London NW6
Sir, Osama bin Laden has not been denied justice. The circumstances in which he had placed himself made any attempt to bring him to justice very dangerous. It is not difficult to accept that the US forces involved took this into account once they found him. Bin Laden might have demanded the robust justice that most of us expect should we be arrested. What he, and his supporters, could not expect is that those trying to bring him before a court should unreasonably risk their lives lest some misfortune overtake him.
Peter Inson
East Mersea, Essex
Sir, Eric Holder?s statement yesterday that bin Laden?s killing was lawful does not automatically make it so. The US Attorney General cannot be the judge of his own cause. It would therefore appear that his announcement is premature.
Rajend Naidu
Sydney, Australia
Sir, President Obama, the man who came to office decrying the obscenities of Guantanamo Bay, and who is bound to uphold law, has forfeited any right the West may have to claim the moral high ground by stooping to the same depths as the terrorists.
We would do well to remember the words of that truly great American Martin Luther King, who said: ?I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.?
Jonathan Liggins
Guildford, Surrey"