In the warped mind of the leadership of the United Nations, killing the worst terrorist in the world is "extra judicial."
On Friday, two professors and part-time U.N. “experts,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, issued a joint statement on Bin Laden’s killing. The two academics claimed that “the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment.” They also insisted that the U.N. was entitled to receive “more facts” “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.” Those standards would be violated, they claimed, unless “the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”
That's a mistake, terrorism is not a crime, it's an act of war. Calling it a crime suggests that the terrorists can be arrested and in the context of jurisprudence could spend a few years in prison, talk about how they hate their moms to prison therapists, and get out all rehabilitated and ready to sing Kumbayah.
There is nothing further from the truth. Bin Laden believes that it is he and his radical form of Islam is in the right, and the Western World is what needs to be rehabilitated.
Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.Allow me to put this a different way. Bin Laden declared war on the United States, he killed thousands of innocent American civilians and our heroes overseas. At the time he was killed there was evidence Bin Laden was planning a new attack on the US this time he was going to attack the commuter rails. Killing that terrorist was a matter of self-defense. Personally, I don't care if Bin Laden had a gun in his hand when he was shot dead, if he remained free he would have killed more Americans. If he remained alive his terrorist network would have probably killed others in an attempt to get their leader back.
The United Nations has no desire to fight terrorism, even though they have been trying for years the world body has not even been able to define terror. The reason? Because they want to be able to exclude terrorism against Israel in their definition.
The UN's refusal to confront terror makes it irrelevant in today's world, as it is the key issue facing the United States and the World. Despite all of the deaths caused by the terrorist menace the UN is still convinced that if they keep their heads in the sand long enough the problem will just go away. Terrorism should not be treated as a mere crime as Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin suggested, it is a fight for our lives. That is a fact obvious to anybody who lived through 9/11 or has a family member fighting for this country overseas. It is obvious to people in Spain or Great Britain, who lived through/or had family killed during terror attacks in their countries, it is obvious to Israeli's whose country celebrates its 63th birthday tonight, and has been on the front lines in against terrorism for much of that time.
Whether Bin Laden was killed with a gun in his hand or not, by killing the terror chieftain the navy seals did the right thing. If the UN objects, maybe we should save ourselves some money by holding back US funding of the the world body.