Madam, – Contrary to the claims made by Raymond Deane (May 4th) there is a strong basis in international law for the US operation resulting in the death of Osama bin Laden. Both the al- Qaeda network and the US are, by their own respective admissions, in a state of armed conflict. Bin Laden had, again by his own admission, a continued role in the planning and direction of al-Qaeda operations and thus had what the International Committee of the Red Cross defines as “continuous combat function” making the termination of him and his command a legitimate application of military force.
Additionally, the location of bin Laden’s compound in a highly fortified garrison town near the Pakistani military’s main training academy, make it highly likely that senior elements of the Pakistani military were aware of, and were facilitating his presence. Given the undoubted unacceptability of such a policy to the Pakistani civilian leadership, this is demonstrative of the degree to which it does not exercise effective sovereignty over its own territory and apparatus of state, making its “violation” fairly technical. Also, given bin Laden’s prior commission of acts of mass murder both within and without the Arab world, and definite intention of committing future acts of same, his killing or capture arguably falls under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine under which violations of state sovereignty are regarded as lawful.
Finally, we should take into account the nature of the mission itself. We know that President Obama, early in the planning stages, ruled out an aerial strike by B2 bombers or cruise missiles, in part due to the possibility of collateral damage. The commando raid that was eventually ordered carried much higher risks of loss of life to US personnel as well as mission failure, but did fall within international legal norms on both proportionality of response and the minimisation of civilian harm.
While I would not join in with JG Lacey’s characterisation of the “Irish liberal-left” (May 4th), cases like this should remind us all that an allegation that international law has been violated does not in itself constitute an argument of same. Furthermore, we should treat with scepticism such allegations unless they come from someone with a thorough grounding in both the principles, letter and use of international law in practice. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In relation to the letters from JG Lacey and Philip Donnelly (May 4th), may I ask how, given that I could not find any sympathetic comments about bin Laden, a criticism of the killing of him, translates as support for him? If Pakistan killed a wanted terrorist in a military operation on US soil, would this be acceptable conduct? If you do not think so, you must support the terrorist.
Criticism of one thing does not imply support for the opposite viewpoint. It is this kind of black or white thinking that has polarised America and must be resisted. – Yours, etc,
ALEXANDER WILLIAMS,
Long Lane, Dublin 8.
A chara, – I'm sure there would be dancing in the streets of Fallujah, Baghdad and Kabul if some one were to shoot an unarmed Bush or Blair, but most people who have suffered from the "war on terror" would prefer to see them in handcuffs answering for mass murder like bin Laden should have.
When our "talking heads" mourn the deaths of civilians in Fallujah as much as they do those in New York, then we can call ourselves civilised.
I doubt the killing of bin Laden angered half as many people in the Middle East as the appointment of warmonger Tony Blair as a peace envoy. – Is mise,
.A chara, – I’m sure there would be dancing in the streets of Fallujah, Baghdad and Kabul if some one were to shoot an unarmed Bush or Blair, but most people who have suffered from the “war on terror” would prefer to see them in handcuffs answering for mass murder like bin Laden should have.
Kennedy Park, Limerick
Madam, – What all the “justice for bin Laden ” advocates forget is that bin Laden had declared war on the US.
Therefore, he was either a soldier waging war, as he depicted himself repeatedly in his video messages, or he was an enemy combatant who was killed in an ambush. – Yours, etc,
Ravensway,
Bury, Lancashire,
England.
Madam, – I note with amazement the number of letter writers who seem to suggest that the killing of Osama bin Laden will inflame passions throughout the Muslim world. We have been told repeatedly that al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Islam and bin Laden and his followers are a tiny minority of extremists. So why would Muslims get upset? Might it be the fact that many Muslims throughout the world have sympathy for what bin Laden was trying to do, what might have been called in Ireland not so long ago “snakin’ regarders”? This is a far more troubling and worrying thought and something on which people should reflect as opposed to nitpicking about whether or not navy Seal team 6 read bin Laden his rights. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Much of the response to Osama bin Laden’s assassination in these pages has been depressingly wrongheaded, though entirely predictable. Rather than putting aside ideologically-driven contempt for the US, and expressing gladness that the world is rid of one of its most evil men, many readers have chosen to opine on the wrongs of American foreign policy and the lack of due process for a mass-murdering terrorist.
Worse were despicable implications such as that America simply believed bin Laden committed crimes, as if it were really in doubt.
Let’s be clear on a few things: bin Laden, without remorse, took full credit for the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, along with other atrocities; bin Laden declared war on the US and the wider western world, choosing to make himself a solider in a war rather than a common criminal; whether because of incompetence or questionable allegiances, Pakistan could not be trusted with the bin Laden’s capture or assassination.
Reasonable people can disagree on aspects of American foreign policy, but there should be little controversial in the killing of a mass-murderer who declared war on innocent civilians and western values. Once again, the Irish Left displays a horribly mixed-up set of priorities. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In the absence of any hard evidence concerning Bin Laden’s death, I would question whether he really was killed in this recent black ops? Morever, the burial at sea is highly suspect given that it is now impossible for any independent source to verify that it was Bin Laden that was killed.
In addition, why did US Seals shoot bin Laden in the face if not to make it impossible to identify him accurately in the event that these gruesome photographs should ever be released? Surely if they wanted to dispose of their target they would have aimed for the centre mass, as this is basic procedure in military conflicts? Also, how can anyone be expected to trust any information supplied by the US government given its track record on lying to its public with respect to the “war on terror”, for example in the case of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the staged Jessica Lynch fiasco. The first casualty in war is the truth indeed. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The American tactic of targeted assassination of its enemies goes right back to the Battle of Freeman’s farm in the American War of Independence in 1777. There, in a episode sometimes considered as the turning point in that war, Irishman Timothy Murphy, an expert marksman, specifically targeted and killed two British generals.
Such specific targeting of generals in battle was considered as barbaric and terroristic by the British, and as against the rules of war. Of course at the time the British represented the legal authority, and the Americans were the “terrorists” so there could not be any question of legal justification for such killing, and Murphy would undoubtedly have been put to death if captured. – Yours, etc,