Osama bin Laden is DEAD?!

[CheerfulYank]

?!

Has anyone seen/heard anything from the Al Quieda camp about this? I just heard they were having a meeting to elect a new leader tonight. Am quite surprised by the lack of public anger in the Middle East about this or is it just not being reported here? The news networks don't usually hang back on showing burning flags and effigies of Western leaders is all, so are we to assume there isn't more anger at his death across parts of the muslim world. I know a lot of muslims disowned him as a muslim, but we've been led to believe he had significant support across the Middle East. So is that not the case then? Or did his supporters expect him to be killed eventually and are sitting there generally shrugging and just discussing a suitable replacement. After all, he's not irreplaceable - am sure there are a fair few nut jobs just gagging for the chance to fill his shoes.

I think it's slightly naive to think he could have been tried without massive security risks, the possiblity of westerners being kidnapped, threats of beheading or even terror attacks - the usual AQ modus operandi. These trials usually drag on for years and years - think of the logistics in this case, not to mention to waste of money. Is there even the remotest chance of a not guilty verdict being returned - think about it? And in the US they have the death penalty anyway for mass murderers. You really think he was going to get out of it alive? Sympathy should be reserved for those who died in burning buildings or planes or jumped to their death to escape the heat. Or for those who were travelling to work on the tube in London or dancing in a nightclub in Thailand or waiting for a train in Madrid when they were blown to bits. For the countless thousands his operatives have blown up in Iraq, Pakistan etc. And for the thousands of relatives left behind - children without parents, parents without children, wives/husbands without spouses. He was responsible to the taking of human life on a massive scale. How does he deserve dignity and respect? He gave it to none of his victims. He lived by the sword, he died that way. It happens.

"How does he deserve dignity and respect?"

Because we are meant to be the "good" side in this.

Running around saying that it's OK to summarily execute and punish people without recourse to the law because applying the law would be "tricky" is pretty much what people who follow AQ believe.

Either you are a free nation and follow the rule of law, or you're not. And if AQ can make us give up on our most precious principles and turn us into them then they've already won.

It's nothing to do with according OBL dignity and respect. It's everything about refusing to discard our dignity and respect because of a vile man like OBL.

However to the best of my knowledge we don't yet know the exact circumstances of OBLs death.

If Pakistan is as co operative as they would have us believe in the war against these terrorists then between the US and the pakistan anti terror authorities he could have been captured and questioned without all of this. One of the middle east experts said as much on sky news last night. We are now in a situation where the west are once again being seen as the aggressors for having mounted this operation with no permission and also from shooting someone unarmed.

Pakistan can't exactly take the moral high ground here. They are in the position of looking either deliberately unco-operative or incompetent.

Well said badgers but sadly our governments have long ditched all those principles by casually trading bribes against big military or merely industrial/trade contract.
Since the cold war turned into the contract war, we have simply turned a blind eye on the rule of law.
Our dignity and respect are not bankable and will certainly not weigh much in a depressed economic environment or an electoral year.

"We are meant to be the "good" side in all this" Really??? Are you sure??? Ask the people of Iraq about that.

"Running around saying that it's OK to summarily execute and punish people without recourse to the law because applying the law would be "tricky" is pretty much what people who follow AQ believe."

And I don't mean to suggest this for a minute as a matter of course, but surely there are extenuating circumstances in the case of the tiny teeny number of people in the league of Stalin, Hitler, Osama etc. I'm talking about massive mass murderers with huge followings, not your average serial killer. Not exactly a fine line we're talking aboout here.

"Really??? Are you sure??? Ask the people of Iraq about that."

So because we utterly dropped the ball over Iraq it's no OK for us just to give up entirely? Surely Iraq is the proof of what happens when our Governments do ignore law and ethics? Surely Iraq is the best example of exactly why we should be demanding that our Governments live up to our expectations?

"surely there are extenuating circumstances in the case of the tiny teeny number of people in the league of Stalin, Hitler, Osama etc."

No.

The moment we allow our Governments to make exceptions about when they can choose to ignore law and "right" we're setting a very dangerous precedent.

Aside from the fact that I refuse to let those monstrous examples of humanity destroy our principles demanding that or Governments behave "correctly" no matter what the provocation is also our best defence against them.

Furthermore when we have such a problem of international terrorism being seen to say that you can set the law aside if some line is crossed gives weight to the "the ends justifies the means" arguments used by terrorists the world over.

LOL at 'we are supposed to be the good side in this'.

Or maybe even now we are seen as the good side (I say 'we' loosely, being Irish) and hence the absence of massive anti-American demonstrations in the Middle East. The Middle East seems to have caught 'intolerance of dictators' fever anyhow, with large numbers of people willing to risk their lives for a better future for themselves and their children. Is it possible that your average Middle Eastern person sees al Qaeda and bin Laden as the thugs they are at this point? People in that region have been fed an anti-American, anti-Western line for decades, and their rulers have grown rich while the ordinary people have not seen their lot improve either materially or in terms of freedom that might be associated with a posture of anti-colonialism. Is it possible that a sense of realism now pervades some sections of Middle Eastern opinion? That the old anti-western shibboleths are now being examined?

I foresee many good questions about the value Pakistan gives for the massive amount of aid (billions of pounds and dollars annually) it receives from the western taxpayer, i.e. you and me. Support of any kind given to a terrorist organisation leads to massive destabilisation, massive strains on the rule of law, and massive headaches for those societies that the terrorists target because it makes it doubly difficult to track down the source of the problems.

Before embarking on the bleating about law and morality, it bears remembering that the UK and the US supported the Mujahadeen, the forerunners of the Taliban and al Qaeda (bin Laden was once a US ally) in the 'good fight' against the USSR in Afghanistan, without regard for their position on women's rights, or their real feelings or intentions wrt the west. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend in the long run. It doesn't pay to consort with insurgents unless you are in absolute control of the outcome of the relationship.

I do see your point Badger and they are great ideals, for sure. But I wonder how things would have played out in reality if he'd have been caught and tried in this particular case. I suppose I take a real rather than ideal approach to politics. He'd have been caught, then sent to where ? (assuming he could have been covertly gotton out of Pakistan, which I'm sure would be the case). Then his whereabouts gets out and casts of thousands gather around his detention centre. Then some hapless westerners get kidnapped - maybe high profile ones - threats of (and actual) beheadings, randsom demands, mass terror attacks costing more innocent lives etc unless he's released. The trial drags on years and years - the massive high security necessary spiralling the costs to the American taxpayer by millions and millions of tax dollars. He could eek it out forever, like the Butcher of Sarajevo Milosovich did with appeal after appeal, eventually shuffling off his mortal coil in custody before he's actually tried. And even if he did go to trial, it would be a travesty in reality, which is what we're living in, let's face it. Do you suppose any jury would find him innocent??? Do you suppose he's escape lethal injection? Can you honestly imagine the Americans setting him free ever??? Come on! Your ideals are great and we should aspire to them, true. But in this particular highly unusual situation, the result would be the same and he'd die. It's an expensive and very dangerous way for us to feel good about ourselves and our society. Very occasionally we need to be pragmatic. It may sound like the thin end of the wedge, but it's not, unless we allow it to go further and become the general way of doing things, which would be very dangerous, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But hard cases don't make good law. Good debate though - these things need to be aired and discussed.

Fab post mathsanxiety.

Mathanxiety makes some very good points (1st) paragraph, but I have to argue that people in the middle east have long digested anti western sentiments.

Its not new, what they loathe is the hypocrisy, the money games, the endemic corruption fueled by shifting western interests. colonialism, neo colonialism, all the same. its all about economic warfare not clash of civilisation lik some would like us to believe.

your next 2 paragraphs illustrate that.
The west has only ever held the moral high ground in its deluded ideals of democracy. The rest of the world understand that its all a fair game of survival of the fittest.

Am a fool maybe, but I would like to believe like Badger that some ideas are worth fighting for, but in this day and age, we would probably be wiser to tell it like it is if we want to go in a plunder a country (and all it economic partnership for the form). People are sick of the holier than thou attitude.

Does anybody really still thinks that democracy is a novel concept for arabs/muslims?
Doesn't anyone remember that the great Greek text made it to the other side of the middle ages via arab translations and commentary?

freezing computer, sorry for the many spelling mistakes

"LOL at 'we are supposed to be the good side in this'."

Well I hope that we are, the alternative is that we just say "ah well our Governments are off doing bad things and it's got nothing to do with me". Our Governments represent us and in the end we are accountable for putting them into power. So I think that at least trying to hold them to high ideals is a good thing.

"Before embarking on the bleating about law and morality, it bears remembering that the UK and the US supported the Mujahadeen"

As already said because we've done bad and stupid things in the past does that mean that we should shrug our shoulders and let our Governments do bad and stupid things again?

Or is the correct course of action to say "right then, we messed this up before, but that's no excuse for continuing to mess it up in future"? Giving up in trying to get our Governments to do the "right" thing would be the real error to make in these times.

Had we turned around and said in the 1980s "no, we're not supporting the Mujahadeen, they're not good people and the ends do not justify the means" then perhaps we'd be living in a very different world...

"He'd have been caught, then sent to where ? snip Then his whereabouts gets out and casts of thousands gather around his detention centre. snip spiralling the costs to the American taxpayer by millions and millions of tax dollars. snip eventually shuffling off his mortal coil in custody before he's actually tried. snip Do you suppose any jury would find him innocent???"

So because the location of the trail would be complex, the security problematic, the costs expensive, death before verdict was likely and you're sure that he would be found guilty it's OK to through justice out of the window and just shoot him?

Either justice applies to us all, or there comes some point where a bean counter can say "actually, you're exempt, you'd be too expensive, and we know that you're guilty, so we'll just shoot you and be done with it".

The cost of that wouldn't be financial, the cost would be the implications to the rest of us once justice is allowed to work that way.

And then as said before there's the horrific implications of us actually agreeing with terrorists and saying that the ends do justify the means and sometimes it's OK to just kill someone if a trial would be a foregone conclusion, too expensive or just too much trouble to go through.

That is the excuse that terrorists use to do what they do and we cannot give that argument any credence.

A far better example to set would be for us to show that whatever you do to us we will not abandon our way of life, you will not change us and the ends do not justify the means.

badgers thats assuming we still do have the moral highground which am not entirely sure we can still argue.

I don't think shooting him was "throwing justice out the window." He was a mass murderer and had openly declared war. Don't declare war and then expect to not die if you're captured by the enemy.

It's been a while since the Middle East exported anything with an intellectual or cultural value to the west. I don't think there are people anywhere who can stomach corruption or hypocrisy for long, but even a short time ago the Islamists seemed to be able to summon flash mobs to burn American flags, effigies, etc., and those rent-a-mobs are so far notable by their absence. The so-called Arab street has been a feature of the Middle East since at least the Iranian Revolution, but it now seems to have been supplanted by different mobs singing from a different hymn book. But I don't think anyone in the higher echelons of western government would really care how the Middle East is governed if not for the material export of the region. Maybe we should all pay more attention to foreign policy when election time comes around? Part of the foreign policy of most western governments involves the distribution of massive amounts of money to people who are very strange bedfellows of politicians who are ostensibly supporters of democracy.

Democracy, or some sort of impulse to secure a decent material life and freedom from the threat of omnipresent secret police/ state terrorism is something everyone can support. That impulse would exist with or without the posturing of the west imo. Al Qaeda (and the Taliban) offer nothing to any society they sponge off except the rule of brutality, something that would be not too much different from life in a gang or Mafia-controlled city. I don't think anyone could really be wholehearted in support of a group that thinks it is answerable only to God, not in the long term anyhow. Maybe something like the killing of bin Laden will encourage people who have been intimidated off the streets up to now to make their voices heard? In the case of the US, the attacks on the WTC sparked a revival of uber-patriotism and contributed to the success of the wrap-me-in-the-flag second candidacy of Dubya where he mightn't have stood a chance of a second term otherwise; the memory of that and the scenes in the Arab world in the wake of the attacks makes the lack of rip roaring outrage in the Middle East over the killing of bin Laden very notable.

The west is really not interested in the moral high ground. There are national myths (including one that sounds very funny to my Irish ears, that Britain has a monopoly on the rule of law) that seem to have a hold on people everywhere. Of course there are people who will vote for candidates or support figures who claim some sort of moral imperative (look at support for Sarah Palin for example), but maybe not consistently over several elections or over several decades of living in fear. Rhetoric of any kind has a short shelf life and groups who pursue their agenda on the backs of ordinary people can expect to get the heave ho eventually. When exactly can depend on many factors, including perhaps the killing of figureheads.

"So because the location of the trail would be complex, the security problematic, the costs expensive, death before verdict was likely and you're sure that he would be found guilty it's OK to through justice out of the window and just shoot him?

Er yes, it is ok to just shoot him in this particular case. FWIW I think it depends on your definition of justice. I think justice is served by his execution, given that he has been behind the murder of thousands of ordinary human beings going about their daily lives and caused untold misery to thousands more. Why beat about the bush? (pardon the pun)

And then there's the tricky concept that with rights come responsibilities, one of those responsibilities being to NOT go round masterminding the killing of thousands of regular people because you hate things some other people of that nation have done. If you behave in an inhuman way, why should you be granted the same rights and dignity as those of us who treat others with respect? Just a thought - and a highly controversial one, I know, but it deserves pause.

"Either justice applies to us all, or there comes some point where a bean counter can say "actually, you're exempt, you'd be too expensive, and we know that you're guilty, so we'll just shoot you and be done with it"

Badger, you have an over-inflated sense of our moral worth as a nation and also a rather too uncritical view of the so called democracy we have here, as laptop suggests. It's not the financial cost of your type of "justice" I'm worried about as the security costs and the potential loss of life that could follow were he kept in custody. The human costs are too great I feel ultimately.

And do you suppose these people care about the example we are setting. They are laughing at us behind their hands and planning the next move.

Badger - your ideals are sound, admireable even. I'm not decrying them - but I just don't think they work and that they would lead to more misery and danger in the long run.

What does it mean to be human anyway?

"badgers thats assuming we still do have the moral highground which am not entirely sure we can still argue."

Fair point, but being moral is something we should aspire to and it's something that we shouldn't give up on because of someone like OBL.

"Don't declare war and then expect to not die if you're captured by the enemy."

Not to die when captured is exactly what you can expect if you declare war on someone.

I can't believe that less than 100 years after the Nuremberg trials someone is actually going to attempt to argue that it's OK just to shoot prisoners.

Note: I'm not saying that the US did just kill OBL or that what happened was a war crime, we don't know enough about it yet to even begin to throw claims like that around.

He wasn't a POW though. He was a prolific terrorist. Not sure the Geneva convention makes provision for that.

Badger - what is "moral"? Does it mean risking more lives for the sake of feeling like we did the right thing? Great debate though. Lots of awkward questions here and issues raised. Getting me thinking anyway,though I really should cook my kids' dinner now. Back later.

"I think it depends on your definition of justice"

Well Justice as in the right to a fair trial, or to go into more detail: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, and or by the law of the land"

I utterly reject the idea that an awful man such as OBL can make us throw that very simple and clear cut concept out of the window.

"Badger, you have an over-inflated sense of our moral worth as a nation and also a rather too uncritical view of the so called democracy we have here"

No I don't, things aren't right, we have made huge mistakes.

As said I just don't believe that we should drop all our aspirations and hopes of principles because of a bunch of terrorists. The only winners from doing so would be the terrorists who would see affirmation of their approach and the military-industrial complex who are probably itching to go running off to grab some more resources.

The winners would most certainly not be us.

"And do you suppose these people care about the example we are setting. They are laughing at us behind their hands and planning the next move."

I couldn't care less what those people make of the example we would be setting. What I care about is sending a clear message to the world that the ends do not justify the means, extra-judicial killing is wrong and perhaps most importantly that I know that in the face of a threat that pales when compared to what our ancestors have been through we didn't just throw in the towel and give up on our way of life.