Questions around operation against Osama bin Laden
Amnesty International has asked the US and Pakistani authorities to clarify aspects of the operation in Abbottabad in which Osama bin Laden was killed.
The organisation specifically requested information on the status and whereabouts of those who were with bin Laden and the circumstances of his killing.
“We are seeking information from the US and Pakistani authorities about how many people were in the compound at the time of the operation, what happened to them and specifically what is the status and current whereabouts of the survivors,” said Claudio Cordone, Senior Director at Amnesty International.
According to reports attributed to Pakistani intelligence officials, 18 people were in bin Laden’s compound at the time of the US attack.
US officials have said that five people were killed and two women were injured – one of whom was identified as bin Laden’s wife – and that at the end of the operation the injured women were left at the compound along with at least six children.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said on 3 May that US forces had full authority to kill Osama bin Laden but that they were to capture him if he had surrendered.
The White House has said that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed but resisted capture.
“Given that he was not armed, it is not clear how he resisted arrest and whether an attempt was made to capture him rather than kill him,” said Claudio Cordone.
“Amnesty International believes that US forces should have attempted to capture Osama bin Laden alive in order to bring him to trial if he was unarmed and posing no immediate threat.”
Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for acts of terrorism amounting to crimes against humanity and has inspired others to commit similar acts. Perpetrators of such acts must be brought to justice in a manner consistent with international law.
Comments
Mark | Posted on 17 May 2011, 01:45AM | Report comment
Naomi, you have echoed my thoughts on the matter. I was and am ashamed. Ashamed that we denied to an enemy that which we demand and have fought to preserve for ourselves, justice and the rule of law. And ashamed at the ignorance of the mob who revelled in their sated lust for revenge.
Bruceter | Posted on 9 May 2011, 11:25PM | Report comment
Bin Laden was a human being, and should not have been deprived of his rights without due process. Terrorists and suspects should be treated under the law.
But it is both lawful and sensible, if Bin Laden may escape or attack troops, to kill him. One is entitled to be relieved that he did not get away. Terrorists have killed CIA captors previously.
It is brave to go against the crowd and say terrorists should be treated according to the law, and not murdered. But it does not flow from that that the US, beyond reasonable doubt, murdered and lied about it.
That information only comes from 1 source is not proof of deceit (although it makes it easier). Nor is changes in analysis as more information comes in.
Being broad minded is more than being narrow minded in a different way to others. Courage is more than assuming that the worst possible of the most powerful party must be true (although it may be).
MIchael Wild | Posted on 9 May 2011, 07:00PM | Report comment
Sorry for a mistype. The issue is whether terrorists should be seens as criminals (send in the police) or as soldiers (send in the army). Basically you detain soldiers for the duration of the law rather than given them a trial.
Michael Wild | Posted on 9 May 2011, 06:53PM | Report comment
Evelin, if the information is contradictory then it IS inadequate information to draw conclusions. Perhaps he was killed on orders, perhaps the team thought he was reaching for a weapon, perhaps he took his life and the American’s haven’t said so to curtail future idolization by angry young Muslims to name just a few of many possibilities. When it comes to intelligence people lie even more than in politics. Bluntly we are never going to know for sure. Despite this you are happily concluding the leadership of the US are a bunch of Rambos. I suspect this reflects a prejudice you would not tolerate if applied to the leadership of say the ruler of a dark skinned country. Incidentally “the give him a fair trial” argument assumes terrorists should be looked on as criminals (send in the police) rather than soldiers (send in the police). This is a vexed issue amongst people who know more about the law than either of us. The killing might be legal even if planned.
Eveline Goy | Posted on 9 May 2011, 09:25AM | Report comment
The difference between Al Quaida and the US is that the US proclaims its commitment to fairness and the rule of the law. It is not that we have inadequate information on the actual event of the killing of Bin Laden; it is the fact that all the information came from official sources, and yet was quite self-contradictory. How could we say that we are committed to protecting the rights of innocent people when at the same time denying the mechanisms of the law and the trial that should have ensued Bin Laden’s capture. Rambo is alive and well, and camps in the White House.
Michael Wild | Posted on 8 May 2011, 02:39PM | Report comment
Steady down Ash. It’s quite possible to disagree without going balistic.
Bruceter’s comment that the Americans may have WANTED to take Bin Laden alive is a very good one. There’s way too many people jumping to conclusions on inadequate information here. I think it best if everyone put their main efforts in the horribly frequent cases where we have very clear data indeed that a government is trampling on the Human Rights of innocent people. I suggests the people who decide how Amnesty spends its resouces on should consider this point.
Bruceter | Posted on 8 May 2011, 04:24AM | Report comment
The observation that Bin Laden would have preferred martyrdom to trial supports the case that he would not have surrendered.
I do not blame the soldiers involved for not taking the risk that he may have had a concealed weapon, something which could only be ascertained for certain after searching his body.
It is a pity that rifles are not presently more easily switchable between lethal and non-lethal (but still in some circumstances effective) ammunition to deal with cases like this.
Incidentally, would not the US have wanted to capture him for purposes of interrogation?
Ash | Posted on 7 May 2011, 11:13PM | Report comment
I note that AI feel that Bin Laden was denied justice and should have been brought to trial rather than being killed. Whilst I accept that you mean well you are also extremely naive. I was relived that Bin Laden had been killed. Can you imagine the danger he would have possed if he was taken alive? All his lunatic supporters would have been hijacking planes and killing INNOCENT people until Bin Laden was released. Good point? It’s a shame you people can’t be more concerned with victims rights as opposed to the rights of criminals. Criminals who would gladly have you as their next victim!!! PS. No doubt you won’t be publishing this comment because the truth can sometimes be a difficult thing to accept!!!
Tony Harris | Posted on 7 May 2011, 06:29PM | Report comment
The killing of Osama bin Laden was to my way of thinking, a calculated assassination. Apparently, he was unarmed when confronted by the American military forces. If this was the case, I find it unbelievable that highly trained American soldiers could not have arrested him without resorting to the two bullets that killed him. He has been denied natural justice, despite his terrorist activities. It has been claimed that he wanted to be martyred. He has achieved his wish. It would have much better if he had been captured alive and brought to justice, where he would have been made to account for his terrorist activities. He would have hated being put on trial, for him it would have been utterly degrading.
Michael Wild | Posted on 7 May 2011, 12:22AM | Report comment
Naomi seems to be a total pacifist who thinks ALL wars are immoral. That’s fine but it’s a very minority position. It sounds great in peace but when a country is attacked with thousands of it’s civilians deliberately killed, most decide that war may be hideous but is sometimes necessary. I agree all killing is distasteful and winced at the rejoicing Americans. But I’m troubled if she really thinks the Americans are “no better than Osama”. There’s a big difference to killing one man (who say he’s a soldier) and a few nearby and deliberately flying planes full of civilians into skyscrapers full of civilians intending to kill as many as possible. If the USA was really just like Bin Laden and keen to kill as many civilians as possible as a political tactic, would they really settle for 3 killed and 3 wounded? They could leave whole cities as smoking ruins. Very few doubt al-Quida would do just that if they could.
Michael Wild | Posted on 6 May 2011, 12:31AM | Report comment
Naomi’s passionate post is a good read and needs two replies. The first is about important but not well known facts. ‘1-2 million’ deaths seems way too high. Wikipedia reports lots of estimates most well below. A key point is most of the deaths did NOT come from the Americans during the invasion(s). They came from Iraqis killing other Iraqi’s afterwards. Yes the invaders have some responsibility but it’s different from intentional killing.
Automatic weapons are things like machine guns; terrible killers and perfectly “legal.” There’s a recent treaty against cluster bombs: the US and other big weapon states haven’t signed it. Depleted Uranium is for anti-armour weapons for tanks and such like. It’s cheap and very heavy and very good at it. It kills far fewer civilians than cluster bombs or ordinary bombs, shells and bullets. There’s a move to ban it but it’s a long way behind cluster bombs. Next post tomorrow.
Naomi Cartledge | Posted on 5 May 2011, 04:47PM | Report comment
I abhor all forms of violence, regardless of who commits these acts. I question the assertions by the US and its allies to democracy and the Rule of Law, while they act in an opposite manner. We should either abhor all acts of terror, or speak out boldly and say, that there’s one rule for us, and another for THEM, and that’s how it’s going to be! That’s at least honest.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorist acts in my view, and the well over a million deaths(probably closer to 2 million)and the horrific injuries and use of depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and automatic weapons are abuses of the Geneva Conventions, and in my view, we’re no better than Osama bin Laden or any other person who asserts, that violence is the answer. What a cowardly and diabolical act of terror this was. I’m disgusted! This act is only surpassed by the gloating and ‘celebrating’ of it!