United Nations Special Rapporteurs statement on bin Laden

[ProSense]

OSAMA BIN LADEN: STATEMENT BY THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON SUMMARY EXECUTIONS AND ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND COUNTER-TERRORISM

GENEVA – The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, have issued the following statement:

“Acts of Terrorism are the antithesis of human rights, in particular the right to life. In certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort in accordance with international standards on the use of force, in order to protect life, including in operations against terrorists. However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.

Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances.

In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.

It may well be that the questions that are being asked about the operation could be answered, but it is important to get this into the open.”

Even the United Nations Special Rapporteurs cite exceptions.

"Acts of Terrorism are the antithesis of human rights"

Yes, they are.

[sabrina 1]

1. Everything depends on what you choose to highlight:

However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.

Did you not see that? Or this?

Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances.

In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.

It may well be that the questions that are being asked about the operation could be answered, but it is important to get this into the open.”

And there was this:

In certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort in accordance with international standards on the use of force, in order to protect life, including in operations against terrorists.

Seems the UN frowns on extra-judicial executions but is giving the US an oportunity to show that this was an exceptional case before condemning it. A reasonable position to take.

[ProSense]

2. "Did you not see that? Or this?"

Yes, the entire statement is in the OP.

The important thing is the claims that there are no exceptions are bogus.

Yes, the norm is capture, circumstances (as cited) permitting.

[sabrina 1]

3. Well we don't know that yet.

The UN doesn't seem to think we know it either but are operating according to the rule of law, otherwise known as 'due process' something we are not especially interested in here in the US anymore. They are providing the US with the opportunity to prove the circumstances were exceptional.

[ProSense]

5. "Well we don't know that yet."

You mean people have been accusing the administration of assassinating or murdering bin Laden without the facts?

U.N. rights boss asks U.S. for facts on bin Laden killing

<...>

It was always clear that taking bin Laden alive was likely to be difficult, she said, noting that U.S. authorities had stated that they intended to arrest him if possible.

"This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law," Pillay said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.

In Washington, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the U.S. operation to go into Pakistan that resulted in the death of bin Laden and the taking of his body.

"If he was captured and brought before a court, I have no doubt he would have been charged with the most serious crimes, including the mass murder of civilians that took place on 9/11, which were planned and systematic and in my view amounted to crime against humanity," said Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge.

[sabrina 1]

8. Those highlights, they are almost like editorials.

So let's look again at what was not highlighted:

"This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law," Pillay said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.

'Must respect International Law'. And that is what the UN is trying to determine. Did the killing of Bin Laden respect International Law. If it did, then there should be no problem providing that evidence. Otoh, if it did not, then I imagine we will see a lot of stalling etc.

But I for one am glad to see that someone is concerned about the rule of law since here in the US it appears to be a thing of the past.

[ProSense]

13. "Those highlights, they are almost like editorials."

So let's look again at what was not highlighted:

"This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law," Pillay said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.

'Must respect International Law'. And that is what the UN is trying to determine. Did the killing of Bin Laden respect International Law. If it did, then there should be no problem providing that evidence. Otoh, if it did not, then I imagine we will see a lot of stalling etc.

But I for one am glad to see that someone is concerned about the rule of law since here in the US it appears to be a thing of the past.

No, highlighting a part of the statement is not an editorial, which is the part where you explain the highlighted statement.

[Solly Mack]

4. I agree with the entire statement of the UNSR.

I agree with you, too...the entire statement matters.

[chowder66]

6. Why did you post what was already posted?

Just to highlight the other passages? Personally I read the whole thing in bold and not in bold and I got the same information. Exceptions to the rule. Especially since this is large scale international terrorism with new tactics (planes into buildings, including the Pentagon - which seems to be skipped over a lot and doesn't somehow make it into nearly any narrative as an act of aggression against a legitamate military target in the U.S).


There are decent arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.

[sabrina 1]

7. Why did the OP highlight only one sentence, without adding

'emphasis mine' even? I posted the entire statement to demonstrate how highlighting something can change the meaning if only one sentence is highlighted. You could almost think that was the point of the additional 'editing' of the OP.

Why didn't you ask the OP why s/he did not simply post the entire statement without any highlighting?

[chowder66]

9. It was repetitive and seemed to be more reactionary as opposed to entering into dialogue.

I did not ask the poster because the poster made it clear that they were responding to another argument and posted the information (highlighting in bold) to clarify that there is more to it. I find it does good to consider all the pieces of information out there to better inform ourselves with. Nothing wrong in that.

[sabrina 1]

10. You mean this OP was in response to something from another

thread? Because if so, I was not aware of that and found the highlighting of one part of the statement to be misleading and simply responded by pointing that out.

[chowder66]

11. You know what?

You are right. I just happened to be on another thread that I inferred the reference to. With that, I am sorry. I read the whole of the text and it matters not whether there was a bold sentence or if the whole thing was in bold. It all reads the same to me.

[sabrina 1]

12. Okay, no problem ~

:-)

[ProSense]

15. Hmmmm?

"Why did the OP highlight only one sentence, without adding 'emphasis mine' even?"

For the same reason you failed to indicate that here.

Are you really trying to build a case about bolding a part of the statement to counter the OP?

[tekisui]

14. This gets to exactly what I keep asking.

I don't think there is any serious risk that the bin Laden operation would ever be prosecuted or even seriously investigated. The UN has recognized the 'terrorist' exception and OBL undoubtedly falls in that category.

The problems arise when we ask, who else?

OBL headed the attack that killed 3,000+ Americans on US soil. We are justified in targeting him. There are still questions on the sovereignty of Pakistan. Whether permission was given from past agreements, from current implied or expressed agreement, or if they were in the dark. There is a question of when it is legal and acceptable for one nation to violate another nation's air and
ground without permission to pursue someone label as a worthy target.

Al-Awlaki has not organized an attack. He has encouraged and motivated attackers. The Ft. Hood shooter was allegedly a follower of al-Awlaki. Hasan killed 13, injured 32. Al-Awlaki didn't plan or fund that attack, yet we have now labeled him a terrorist and he is on the hit list.

We targeted Gaddafi. He is not a threat to Americans on US soil. Mullah Omar is not a threat to Americans on US soil. Can we target those who may at some point in the future be a threat?

We are entering a dangerous world. We are establishing precedents that I don't think have been thought through all the way.

[ProSense]

16. "The UN has recognized the 'terrorist' exception and OBL undoubtedly falls in that category. "

"The problems arise when we ask, who else?"

Other terrorists?

[tekisui]

17. Keep going. Answer the other questions.

[EFerrari]

18. The UN Special Rapporteur has issued no finding yet. n/t