DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**brraverishhh** · 04-05-2011, 08:32 AM

The Independent today has Geoffrey Robertson QC asserting the “absurdity” of any claim that justice has been done by his abrupt death – better a formal legal process if at all possible:" European jurists and Europeans in general invariably equate the terrorist actions of Al-Qaeda to that of the Irish Republican Army. Such a comparison is disingenuous and faulty. The IRA would call in warnings before its attacks and its largest terrorist action killed twenty-nine people. In actuality, this was a condensed and local dispute.

Al-Qaeda by contrast issued numerous public declarations of war against the United States and the West during the 1990’s. It's reach is global and it embraced a policy of no mercy. Al-Qaeda destroyed two US embassies in Africa which killed hundreds of civilians. AQ attacked a US warship, attacked the Pentagon, and killed thousands of American civilians on 9/11.

This is not a law enforcement issue. By any metric, these are acts of war. Supposedly intellectual Europeans like Geoffrey Robertson QC seem to forget that a state of war was so obvious that NATO invoked Article 5 in the wake of 9/11... “An attack against one member nation is considered an attack against all.” In a state of war, it is perfectly lawful and legitimate to target the political and military leadership of the enemy with deadly force. Let us also not forget that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, killed untold thousands of innocent Muslims throughout the world.

But let’s take a moment play the intellectual law-enforcement parlor game of the estimable Geoffrey Robertson QC. Let us propose here that law enforcement agents are raiding a suspected drug house. The police announce their presence, break down the door, and toss in a flash-bang. They shout at everyone to get down on the floor and not move. Let us suppose that a drug dealer (unarmed) ignores these directions and begins to run towards an AK-47 propped up in a corner of the room. This is resistance and for all intent and purposes... deadly resistance. The police SWAT team would shoot to kill and legitimately so. No court in any country would convict law enforcement officers of murder or excessive force in such a scenario.

What Geoffrey Robertson QC is attempting to do is to equate the raid on UBL’s compound with an extralegal assassination. But no matter how you look at it, from either a military or a police standpoint, it was a justified kill. Sovereignty? The president of Pakistan himself has publicly stated that he has no qualms about the US raid which resulted in the death of the beast who murdered the mother of his children.

To Geoffrey Robertson QC and his ilk... you are an embarrassment to intellectuals everywhere.

To the untold thousands of bin-Laden victims around the globe... justice was done.

04-05-2011, 08:32 AM	#3
brraverishhh Join Date Jan 2006 Posts 5,127 Senior Member	The Independent today has Geoffrey Robertson QC asserting the “absurdity” of any claim that justice has been done by his abrupt death – better a formal legal process if at all possible:" European jurists and Europeans in general invariably equate the terrorist actions of Al-Qaeda to that of the Irish Republican Army. Such a comparison is disingenuous and faulty. The IRA would call in warnings before its attacks and its largest terrorist action killed twenty-nine people. In actuality, this was a condensed and local dispute. Al-Qaeda by contrast issued numerous public declarations of war against the United States and the West during the 1990’s. It's reach is global and it embraced a policy of no mercy. Al-Qaeda destroyed two US embassies in Africa which killed hundreds of civilians. AQ attacked a US warship, attacked the Pentagon, and killed thousands of American civilians on 9/11. This is not a law enforcement issue. By any metric, these are acts of war. Supposedly intellectual Europeans like Geoffrey Robertson QC seem to forget that a state of war was so obvious that NATO invoked Article 5 in the wake of 9/11... “An attack against one member nation is considered an attack against all.” In a state of war, it is perfectly lawful and legitimate to target the political and military leadership of the enemy with deadly force. Let us also not forget that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, killed untold thousands of innocent Muslims throughout the world. But let’s take a moment play the intellectual law-enforcement parlor game of the estimable Geoffrey Robertson QC. Let us propose here that law enforcement agents are raiding a suspected drug house. The police announce their presence, break down the door, and toss in a flash-bang. They shout at everyone to get down on the floor and not move. Let us suppose that a drug dealer (unarmed) ignores these directions and begins to run towards an AK-47 propped up in a corner of the room. This is resistance and for all intent and purposes... deadly resistance. The police SWAT team would shoot to kill and legitimately so. No court in any country would convict law enforcement officers of murder or excessive force in such a scenario. What Geoffrey Robertson QC is attempting to do is to equate the raid on UBL’s compound with an extralegal assassination. But no matter how you look at it, from either a military or a police standpoint, it was a justified kill. Sovereignty? The president of Pakistan himself has publicly stated that he has no qualms about the US raid which resulted in the death of the beast who murdered the mother of his children. To Geoffrey Robertson QC and his ilk... you are an embarrassment to intellectuals everywhere. To the untold thousands of bin-Laden victims around the globe... justice was done.
	Quote