Human, Economic and Legal Rights - Essay Example

Human, Economic and Legal Rights Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Name and Code: University: Date of Submission: Human, Economic and Legal Rights The execution of Osama bin Laden was a moral outrage and a violation of human rights. The shooting of Osama was a reaction of the perturbed course of peace in the world by terrorist attacks. Despite the continuation of autonomous democracy and successful leadership in the global communities the terrorist have caused an abrupt distraction to the smooth sailing of the prevailing peaceful nations.1 They perpetuate killing and hinder development in able countries because investors fear in investing the attack- prone areas. Osama bin Laden was ambushed in his residence in Pakistan, a few meters from a military training school. This is quite ironic for the world thought that he lived in bunkers. The attack was done by the US troops who got forcefully got in Pakistan and without the consent of the government officials executed Osama bin Laden.2 This paper discusses the background of his killing, that is whether he was armed or not and his reaction to the attack. It bedevils the act that US soldiers killed unarmed man.3 Osama was denied human rights that are internationally recognized and they entail the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and also the right to life. All those key rights were denied to him. The death of Osama could be justifiable on the fact that he had killed so many people and it was his time to die, but is this the right way of getting justice? This meets resistance where morality of his killing is questioned. In this case, the exceptionalism of US military in the international law is evident.4 The consequences of killing Osama are viewed in that this can encourage impunity and countries can use it as an excuse to commit extrajudicial killings. The paper is trying to call for a decent way of approaching terrorism and the victims as well as the criminals in the world.5 1. Background to the killing The law practitioners have labeled the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a moral outrage. Geoffrey Robertson QC, a human lawyer said, that the killing of Osama risked the rule of law being undermined.6 As a unit of measure, he argued that there was a possibility of Osama being discussed at the International Criminal Court at The Hague by a council of judges who could include Muslim Jurists. The main reason of doing this was to demystify Osama as well as debunking the cause he seeks to fulfill and most importantly to de- brainwash his followers. That act would have given Osama a fair verdict that is within the law and also that is in accordance with the human rights act. Osama was a strong man and his status was a threat to the Americans and the world at large. His death occurred in Pakistan. Ironically he resided near a military school in Pakistan as opposed to thought that he lives in caves. The military had an opportunity to arrest him and press charges but this would have brought uprising from Islamic countries. His corpse could not be shown to the public because it would bring forth rage and retaliation. It was tactical of the media to downplay the viewing idea of Osama’s corpse. Obama said that it was of no use to glorify their killing with pictures. In contrast to Osama’s death president Saddam was viewed as he was being dragged from a hole and this is an indication that, he is a weaker enemy of America. In that killing, there lacks a battle field to show the ensuing process of death to Osama. All we got was the somber and powerful announcement from President Obama. This has been accompanied by a video of Osama’s compound but a pronounced absence of his image. In contrast to the sympathizers, it was justice to the victims of terror attacks. They organized a march for peace and the silent celebration of the justice that has been delivered to them and the restoration of their dignity. In Mexico, more than fifteen thousand people marched across Mexico. In Islamabad the Pakistan prime minister said that, it was “indeed justice done” when the Americans raided the country and killed Osama bin Laden. He later warned that in reference to international laws, such unilateral strikes in the borders of the country will be met with ’‘full force”. This is an insinuation that, Pakistan was not happy with the intrusion but felt relieved to have Osama killed because he may have threatened them so as to secure residence in their country. The Pakistan is distancing itself from the killing maybe to avoid blames by Islamic countries or still avoid revenge attacks by the Al Qaeda. Despite the fact that the CIA station in Islamabad is leaking, Yousuf Raza Gilani, the prime minister stressed that Pakistan still maintains a key relationship with the United States. The leak is about damaging the covert American operations in the country. After Osama’s death, Pakistan carries the blame that they knew of his whereabouts and are in defense. The Pakistan military is then criticized for failing to stop the attacks by a foreign military which is an indication that there was collaboration to execute Osama. 2. The human rights which were denied to Osama. Presumption of innocence From a human rights perspective, the execution violated his presumption of innocence. This is because; he was not armed then and did not use any of his four wives as a shield. The police can not say they killed him for self defense, so it qualifies to a violation of human rights act and a violation to Osama’s right to live.7 He should have been given a hearing so as to know what motivated him to commit the so called terrors. At that moment, he was a suspect and shooting him is buying the truth never to be retrieved from the suspect himself.8 Osama’s adult sons were quick to lash out at president Obama over their dad’s death. They have accused US of violating some of the legal principles that guide it; killing unarmed man and burying his body in the sea.9 The family members wanted to know why their father was not arrested and tried like all other suspects.10 They felt angered by that kind of terror unleashed to their father. In the current rating of suspects they feel that his father has not committed the atrocities the American government purports he has committed. They felt that the assassination did not only blatantly violate laws but also ignored the principle of presumption of innocence. They were against the arbitrary killings saying that it not a solution to political problems. They were in quest for justice to be done whereas the American felt that justice has been done already. The right to a fair trial In his argument his son, Omar bin Laden felt that his father needed to be tried so that the truth should be known to the world.11 The family cited the case of Saddam Hussein who was accorded a proper trial. There was a possibility of arresting Osama and trying him in a court of law, but this would have brought collision of radical Islam countries with the US. The Americans felt that this would complicate the situation further. In the same case they wanted to show the other terrorists that they are not far from the muzzle. Osama was entitled to fair trial because the failure of this trial would stain the US reputation and the image of president Obama.12 Osama’s adult sons have said that they will unite to fight back for their father’s assassination. They feel he was a force to reckon with and did not such an unruly termination. This is a threat to the international wrecked peace because no one knows whether they have been oriented into terrorism or not.13 The Americans felt that Osama’s executions were driven by his hated to the US country and ideologies, but president Obama put it clearly that it was not a personal fight but a fight to an enemy abroad whose weapons are destructive to the well being of the world’s co-existence. The right to life It is a fundamental law that everyone is entitled to life. Killing Osama in this manner is an outright violation of the law. The death of Osama is an opposite act of what the US law on humanity stands for. In the universal Declaration of Human rights and also the American Convention of Human rights recognizes that forced disappearance is a gave offense that is abominable offence that is inherent to the human dignity. It further states that disappearance of human beings is liable to constitute crime against humanity. The same American are quick to execute an assassination thus violating the same rule they have set against humanity and right to live (Michael et al., 2007, p.259-261). The killing of Osama was a planned activity and a forceful one at the same time. The US brought its troops in a foreign country and without the consent of the Pakistan’s administration, unleashed terror to Osama who lived in that country (Curtis, 2011). Even if Osama had killed millions, he was entitled to a life and should have been captured and tried in a court of law. It is unbelievable to think that the US had no other option apart from killing Osama. This is a quest to perpetrate the rights of Osama as a human being to live. According to reports, he was killed by two gun shots, at a close range. This shows that they were from their home country and set to execute a killing. They then took his body and were in charge of it. It is an indication that they were able to capture him but opted otherwise. The innocent woman who succumbed in the act was also robbed her life too. The troops claim that Osama used her as a shield of which is untrue. He was defenseless and did not fight back because he could not to outdo the troop’s systematic attack.14 3. Was the killing justifiable despite the rights violations? Morality of the killing There are no morals in the killing of Osama.15 The key reason being he was not armed neither was he resisting an arrest. The idea that Osama’s death will promote the general good is unthinkable. A death whether in pursuit of satisfaction or promotion of so called general good is a death. A death is supposed to be natural not forced. The application of death in pursuit of general good is immoral so killing Osama is evil and should be a bedeviled act that needs not to be repeated in the future.16 The reason is that, there is involvement of ” dirty hands”. The dirty hands refer to the political interference where politicians seek fame through evil executions. For instance it is argued that Obama did this in preparation of 2012 elections. This could have averted the right channel of acquiring justice through the courts. Those insinuations are accepted as risks but the US administration accepted that saying that they are not fighting cynicism not even fear mongering but fighting an enemy who is abroad.17 Even if that was the case there was no need of an execution. If everyone executes their enemy, what a world would we be in finally? Now that Osama sons have vowed to fight back, then the executions would be a culture or a vicious cycle that will never end (Michael et al., 2007, p.259-261). Violated rights The exceptions of the rights to kill in Osama case were overlooked. The suspect was not armed so this is a violation of humanity rights as well as the individual rights to live. The international law prohibits targeted killings.18 The killing was extrajudicial and is a violation to the right to life.19 The US exceptionalism to law has been their strength and uses it to bully the other countries. There was no evidence because the US troops said that the body was handed to the Muslims to be buried at the sea. Human Rights groups to reckon with like Amnesty International, UN Human Rights Council among others cannot find any evidence against the atrocities committed by US. There is no human right lawyer in his/her right mind that can support such heinous act. If these rights are denied to Osama, it will set a bad precedent in that, many administrations can use this act as a unit of measure to commit their heinous acts. For example, Osama’s son, Omar wanted to know why his father was not arrested and there was the ability to do that just like Saddam was done and charged in a court of law. Killing Osama could in way be justifiable because capturing him would have brought more tension than solution to the world.20 He would bring fresh conflict between the radical Islam countries and the American country.21 The latter would suffer for trying to accord justice in the right manner but the former would bring suffering in their purported justice search through executions as guided by their religion beliefs. It was a tough decision to make but al in all the both sides should have been considered; whether to kill him or to retain him. According to Jennifer (2001, p221) through international contact, there was the desire to reeducate the military on pressures that would increase efficiency. The military could have been exposed to new manners of counter attacking terrorism and ensuring that it is controlled in the right manner where the rights of human beings are observed. 4. Conclusion Osama was supposed to be captured and means put in place for checking his stay by the military and the process would have made him answer charges pressed against him hence demystifying him as well as de- brainwashing his blind followers.22 That would have been a right step towards international healing and elimination of petty grudges with no grounds. This would also serve as a global healing process where future attacks through terrorism would lack grounds. The world super powers should refrain from using their strength in economy and politics in averting the right course of justice as it has been the case with the America. They destroyed evidence from the Human Rights groups like Amnesty international by burying Osama’s body at the sea. This was done in line with the Muslim culture, so that in case of exhumation, the conflict will be with the Muslim religion. Their tactical behavior reduces international human rights groups to toothless bull dogs. The way US executed Osama is an extrajudicial act of execution that can be a root cause of impunity. Many countries get the idea that they can be executing their criminals thus causing a conflict in the world. Countries are supposed be royal to the organizations that govern them so that controlled governance is put in place to check the affairs of the world as a whole. Bibliography Articles, Journals and Books Beck, Julie, Victims' Rights and Public Safety? Unmasking Racial Politics in Crime Discourses Surrounding Parole Revocation for "Lifers" in California (2010) 11(1) Western Criminology Review: SPECIAL ISSUE: Discourse, Race and the State 20-36. Bianchi, Andrea, Terrorism and Armed Conflict: Insights from a Law & Literature Perspective. (2011) 24(1) Leiden Journal of International Law 1-21.  Drumbl, Mark (2010). Prosecution of Genocide v. the Fair Trial Principle: Comments on Brown and others v. The Government of Rwanda and the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8(1), 289.  Holmes, Jennifer, Terrorism and democratic stability (2001). Huxley-Binns, Rebecca,The Presumption of Innocence-Evidential and Human Rights Perspectives (2011) 3 The Criminal Law Review 259 -   Kennison, Peter., & Loumansky, Amanda, Shoot to kill - understanding police use of force in combatting suicide terrorism (2007) 47(3), Crime, Law and Social Change 151-168 Leila, Nadya and Michael, Scharf, The theory and practice of international criminal law: essays in honor of M. Cherif Bassiouni (2008) McCulloch, Jude & Pickering, Sharon, Future threat: pre-crime, state terror, and dystopia in the 21st century (2010) 81 CJM : Criminal Justice Matters, 32.  O'Flaherty, Michael, The human rights field operation: law, theory and practice (2007). Plaw, Avery, Targeting terrorists: a license to kill? (2008). Rehn Alison, Human rights lawyer says Osama should have been brought to trial instead of killed, (2011, May 4) The Daily Telegraph Richard Stone, Police powers and human rights in the context of terrorism (2006) 48(4), Managerial Law: Law, justice and democracy in Europe 384-399. Smith T. H, Balancing Liberty and Security? A Legal Analysis of United Kingdom Anti-Terrorist Legislation (2007) 13(1-2), European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 73-83. The Pak Banker Iran: Osama deserved fair trial not execution (2011, May 14) The Pak Banker Van Sliedregt, Introduction: Common Civility - International Criminal Law as Cultural Hybrid (2011) 24(2), Leiden Journal of International Law 389-391.  Case Studies Kelly v United Kingdom (1993) 74 D & R 139 Klinkel v. Saddler (1930) 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 McCann and others v United Kingdom (1995) 21 ECHR 97 GC) Nasser Al-Aulaqi,. Plaintiff, v. Barack H. Obama (2010) 1:10-cv-01469-JDB Tennessee v. Garner (1985)471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 Other Sources Curtis Doebbler, The Illegal Killing of Osama Bin Laden, (2011) < http://jurist.org/forum/2011/05/curtis-doebbler-illegal-killing-obl.php> at 24 May 2011 US Department of Homeland Security, Statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on the Death of Osama Bin Laden (2011) < http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1304346558767.shtm>at 24 May 2011 White House, Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Killing of Osama bin Laden (2011) < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/press-briefing-senior-administration-officials-killing-osama-bin-laden> at 24 May 2011. Read More