By David Roberts

Leaders around the world, including some in Latin America, have been singing the praises of Barack Obama, hailing him for finally bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

But is that really justice, killing an unarmed man by shooting him in the head? Whatever he's done, and in no way is anyone trying to justify what deeds Bin Laden committed, that is no way to dispense justice. Justice is about finding the truth, being balanced and fair, answering the charges, giving people a chance to defend themselves, independently and impartially determining whether someone is innocent or guilty, and handing down an appropriate, and proportionate, sentence.

In the case of Osama bin Laden, as no evidence has been presented we cannot even independently know how he was killed, or even whether he was killed, as according to the US authorities he was buried (dumped) at sea within hours of dying.

We're not talking here about publishing gruesome photos of Bin Laden's body on the internet, or even making the evidence public, as Obama suggests is the unacceptable alternative to covering up the evidence of this extra-judicial killing/execution/assassination/murder, call it what you will. It's simply a matter of obtaining independent verification. Nasty murders happen on a regular basis, and there's no need to post all the forensic evidence on the web. But in the case of Bin Laden, now it's too late.

The whole incident, this "wild west" charade of justice (wanted dead or alive, as George W Bush said, but preferably dead to save the embarrassment of a trial) smacks more of what a dictator, Latin America-1970s style, would engage in to liquidate his opponents (along with a tendency to throw their bodies into the ocean), rather than the actions of a respectable democratic state. But this is a war, they cry, and he started it! But even in war there are accepted rules of engagement (except maybe by the likes of the Taliban). He had an AK-47 at hand! "At hand," not in hand, by all accounts. Would the police get away with shooting dead a common criminal in such circumstances? No. Despite claiming to have turned the page, the Obama administration is now using the discourse of Bush's "war on terror."

At best it can be said to be revenge, but a rather pathetic revenge it is at that, if he really was - and we all assume he was, he boasted about it - behind the terrible events of September 11, 2001, and the other horrific crimes of Al Qaeda.

Of course, among his followers, killing him, especially in such a manner, is more likely to enhance Osama "The Sheikh" bin Laden's iconic status and his martyrdom than tarnish his reputation. And no matter how much evidence is produced, there will always be those who refuse to believe that he's dead - there'll be alleged sightings of him every now and again, just like there still are occasionally of Elvis Presley.

So what should the Americans have done? A tough call, but the answer is to have cooperated with the Pakistanis, and arrested Bin Laden. Clearly, despite the denials, there are elements of the Pakistan security forces with close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, for whatever reason (such as the complex Kashmir situation, and the US-backed support they gave to the Mujahideen - including to Bin Laden himself - in the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan). Yet, Pakistan is a crucial ally for the west in this context and the violation of its sovereignty and deigning Islamabad as untrustworthy is not going to help anyone. In fact, the whole episode is more likely to stir up anti-Western feelings and provoke more acts of terrorism than it is to contribute to world peace. Many may celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden, but as is the case with any criminal, the victims are not in the best position to pass judgment.

bnamericas

Caribbean Blog International