THE ASSASSINATION OF OSAMA BIN LADEN – JUSTICE OR MURDER?
May 5th, 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/04/bin-laden-death-no-endgame#start-of-comments
Bin Laden’s death: ‘Why kill the goose?’
Pakistan is in the grip of a fierce debate about who knew what. The military won’t come out of it well
- Tariq Ali
- guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 May 2011 20.00 BST
- Article history
Blinded by the thirst for vengeance, the United States targets and kills another enemy. Its citizens celebrate. And functionaries of the George W Bush period tell us that what it proves is torture at Guantánamo worked, after all. Europe applauds. Vassals elsewhere (including Pakistan’s president) congratulate the US on mission accomplished.
This is slightly bizarre, given that Bin Laden had apparently been in a safe house near the Pakistan military academy for six years. Nobody believes this could have happened without the knowledge of senior intelligence officials. A meeting with one such person in 2006, which I recounted in my last book on Pakistan, confirmed that Bin Laden was in the country and being kept safe. The person concerned told me the Americans only wanted Bin Laden dead, but that it was in Pakistan’s interest to keep him alive. In his words: “Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?” – a reference to the billions in aid and weaponry being supplied to the army. At the time I wasn’t sure whether my informant was fantasising to amuse or misinform me; he was obviously telling the truth.
Pakistan is in the grip of a fierce debate, its politico-military establishment damned whatever the case. If they admit they were in the know, they stand condemned within their own ranks. There is a great deal of dissension among junior officers and soldiers unhappy about border missions in which they are forced to target their own people. If it turns out that the US didn’t even bother to inform the Pakistanis that helicopters were on the way to clip Bin Laden, they stand exposed as leaders who permit the country’s sovereignty to be violated at will.
The departing CIA chief Leon Panetta has said the decision was made early not to tell Pakistan so as not to compromise the operation. But stories are changing rapidly, and nothing can be taken at face value. As WikiLeaks revealed, there was a US-Pakistan agreement, that while the latter would tolerate drone attacks they would be forced to denounce them because of public anger. On the other hand, given that within the CIA the ISI is referred to as a terrorist organisation, there may have been anxiety about leaks. The helicopters that entered Pakistan airspace would have been cleared as part of routine reconnaissance, though in the past Pakistani radar has been jammed to facilitate raids. This time it was not.
Reliable sources in Pakistan are insistent that the army had no prior knowledge of this raid. Since there is absolutely no way Pakistan could have come out of this looking good, the ISI, had it known, would undoubtedly have attempted a pre-emptive move as this event will almost certainly affect future US aid. If the Pakistani army or intelligence were involved they could have easily moved the final showdown to a less embarrassing location – the mountains in Waziristan, for instance. Furthermore it has handed both India and Afghanistan a major opportunity to settle scores in the propaganda wars.
In reality, Bin Laden’s death changes nothing, except perhaps to ensure that, economy permitting, Barack Obama is re-elected. The occupation of Iraq, the Af-Pak war and Nato’s Libyan adventure look set to continue. Israel-Palestine is stalemated, though the despotisms in the Arab world that Obama has denounced are under pressure – except the worst of them all, Saudi Arabia.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban leaders will be relieved that they can no longer be tarred with the Bin Laden brush, but his killing does not change the situation there one bit. The insurgents might not be in a position to take Kabul, (they never could even during the Russian occupation) but elsewhere they control a great deal. The US cannot win this war. The sooner it gets out, the better. Until it does, it will remain dependent on Pakistan, the ally Americans love to hate.
Bin Laden’s death: ‘Why kill the goose?’
Pakistan is in the grip of a fierce debate about who knew what. The military won’t come out of it well
- Tariq Ali
- guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 May 2011 20.00 BST
- Article history
Blinded by the thirst for vengeance, the United States targets and kills another enemy. Its citizens celebrate. And functionaries of the George W Bush period tell us that what it proves is torture at Guantánamo worked, after all. Europe applauds. Vassals elsewhere (including Pakistan’s president) congratulate the US on mission accomplished.
This is slightly bizarre, given that Bin Laden had apparently been in a safe house near the Pakistan military academy for six years. Nobody believes this could have happened without the knowledge of senior intelligence officials. A meeting with one such person in 2006, which I recounted in my last book on Pakistan, confirmed that Bin Laden was in the country and being kept safe. The person concerned told me the Americans only wanted Bin Laden dead, but that it was in Pakistan’s interest to keep him alive. In his words: “Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?” – a reference to the billions in aid and weaponry being supplied to the army. At the time I wasn’t sure whether my informant was fantasising to amuse or misinform me; he was obviously telling the truth.
Pakistan is in the grip of a fierce debate, its politico-military establishment damned whatever the case. If they admit they were in the know, they stand condemned within their own ranks. There is a great deal of dissension among junior officers and soldiers unhappy about border missions in which they are forced to target their own people. If it turns out that the US didn’t even bother to inform the Pakistanis that helicopters were on the way to clip Bin Laden, they stand exposed as leaders who permit the country’s sovereignty to be violated at will.
The departing CIA chief Leon Panetta has said the decision was made early not to tell Pakistan so as not to compromise the operation. But stories are changing rapidly, and nothing can be taken at face value. As WikiLeaks revealed, there was a US-Pakistan agreement, that while the latter would tolerate drone attacks they would be forced to denounce them because of public anger. On the other hand, given that within the CIA the ISI is referred to as a terrorist organisation, there may have been anxiety about leaks. The helicopters that entered Pakistan airspace would have been cleared as part of routine reconnaissance, though in the past Pakistani radar has been jammed to facilitate raids. This time it was not.
Reliable sources in Pakistan are insistent that the army had no prior knowledge of this raid. Since there is absolutely no way Pakistan could have come out of this looking good, the ISI, had it known, would undoubtedly have attempted a pre-emptive move as this event will almost certainly affect future US aid. If the Pakistani army or intelligence were involved they could have easily moved the final showdown to a less embarrassing location – the mountains in Waziristan, for instance. Furthermore it has handed both India and Afghanistan a major opportunity to settle scores in the propaganda wars.
In reality, Bin Laden’s death changes nothing, except perhaps to ensure that, economy permitting, Barack Obama is re-elected. The occupation of Iraq, the Af-Pak war and Nato’s Libyan adventure look set to continue. Israel-Palestine is stalemated, though the despotisms in the Arab world that Obama has denounced are under pressure – except the worst of them all, Saudi Arabia.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban leaders will be relieved that they can no longer be tarred with the Bin Laden brush, but his killing does not change the situation there one bit. The insurgents might not be in a position to take Kabul, (they never could even during the Russian occupation) but elsewhere they control a great deal. The US cannot win this war. The sooner it gets out, the better. Until it does, it will remain dependent on Pakistan, the ally Americans love to hate.
Bin Laden’s killing a ‘perversion of justice’ABC News Updated Wed May 4, 2011 12:11pm AEST
High-profile Australian QC and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson says the killing of Osama bin Laden is a perversion of justice that has effectively given the terrorist mastermind what he craved.
In the days since bin Laden’s death, the US has been forced to backtrack and clarify details of the killing, with a picture now emerging of a targeted assassination.
This morning, White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed bin Laden was unarmed when US commandos raided his compound in Pakistan and shot him above his left eye, reportedly blowing away a section of his skull.
Mr Robertson has told ABC News Breakfast bin Laden should have been brought to trial and his death has made him look like a martyr.
“The way to demystify this man is not to kill him and have the iconic picture of his body,” he said.
“The way to demystify him, rather than to these soulful pictures of the tall man on the mountain, is to put him on trial, to see him as a hateful and hate-filled old man screaming from the dock or lying in the witness box.
“That way the true inhumanity of the man is exposed.”
Mr Robertson says US president Barack Obama has been sloppy with his use of the word “justice” and questions need to be answered about whether there was an explicit order to kill bin Laden.
“It’s not justice. It’s a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them,” he said.
“This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination.”
Mr Robertson says it is an irony that the US has given bin Laden what he craved.
“The last thing he wanted was to be put on trial, to be convicted and to end his life in a prison farm in upstate New York,” he said.
“What he wanted was exactly what he got – to be shot in mid-jihad and get a fast track to paradise and the Americans have given him that.
“It’s an irony that it’s a win-win situation for both Osama and Obama. The latter gets re-elected as president and the former gets his fast track to paradise.”
The US is still debating whether to release what it says are “gruesome” photos of bin Laden’s corpse.
The White House also has pictures of bin Laden’s burial at sea, which it says adhered to Muslim traditions.
But Mr Robertson says there will be consequences of releasing any of the photos.
“The method of disposing his body at night without an autopsy is also questionable,” he said.
“They’ve got a photograph but they’re not releasing that for fear that it’ll become iconic, rather like the picture of Che Guevara on the slab.
“But if governments kill people, that’s one of the consequences.”
Mr Robertson says there now needs to be an inquiry into the death.
It is interesting that Australian and US politicians, who claim to be at war with terrorism, persist in supporting the worst terrorist outfit in SE Asia, the TNI. If they were genuine, why are they refusing to bring the TNI war criminals to justice and why do they refuse to put pressure on Indonesia’s government to make them pay for their crimes?