Sunday, May 8, 2011

Osama bin Laden, whose justice?

May 8th, 2011
 
By  
Ioanna
Papageorgiou*
 
Towards the end of World War II, Winston Churchill and others began drawing up plans for how to deal with the Nazi perpetrators when captured. Apparently there was suggestion of summary execution in some circumstances but he was dissuaded by the Americans. Instead, the Nazi criminals who could be tried were put through the war tribunals in the famous Nuremberg Trials.
Out of the trials came the Nuremberg Principles and Principle VI which dictates against war crimes. War crimes such as the US-led invasion of Iraq (source)
“To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” (Nuremberg Principles)
I won’t discuss the Iraq and Afghanistan attacks further. Plenty has been written about them already [Medialens, Chomsky, Pilger]. I don’t stand judge over who did what with 9/11 and US crimes against so many countries. I just want to point out an article by newmatilda.com which sums up my thoughts of this latest US illegal act.
There is no justice in state murder, no justice in ignoring criminal law’s due process — even if the evidence is irrefutable that bin Laden masterminded the attacks on New York, Washington and helped to plan other terrorist atrocities. There is no justice in implying that the death of one man, however notorious, can deflect attention from the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vengeance Is Never Sweet By Stuart Rees
Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, which translates to “Let justice be done, though the sky may fall.” As I tweeted on the day that I found out: even the Nazis were given a trial

*H Ioanna P. spoydase Evropaiko Dikaio kai politikes epistimes ..

No comments:

Post a Comment

Ψάξε στην Εφημερίδα efhmeris.blogspot.com

wibiya widget

There was an error in this gadget