Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Justice had been done


Published on

For an act to be considered as justice it must be just, the means and the end of the act as well as the premises and conclusions for the act must be just.
– Thesigan Nadarajan

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Justice had been done

  1. 1. JUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE For an act to be considered as justice it must be just, the means and the end of the act as well as the premises and conclusions for the act must be just. – Thesigan Nadarajan When President Barack Obama announced that, “Justice had been done,” in thecontext of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, It could have been a tremendous victory fordemocracy and justice. Why is it not so, when there are so many reasons in support?Support for Killing Osama Bin Laden If we talk about an appeal to authority, the killing of Osama had the authorizationsof both houses of Congress, UN, and President Barack Obama. BBC news reports, that, afterOsama’s killing, US officials justified it, as being part of the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, anact of national self-defence, and as being legal to target enemy commanders. Can we saythat all these reasons for authorizing the killing were just? Let’s say, “Yes.” If the killing ofOsama had all the necessary authorizations and reasons and it was just, why kill him whenhe was unarmed?Question of Legality on the Killing of Osama Bin Laden The question of legality on the killing of Osama is raised when we read the assertionof Benjamin Ferencz, who according to BBC news argued that, “it would have been better tocapture Bin Laden and send him to court. Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat isa crime under military law as well as all other law," Why kill an unarmed Osama? If killing an unarmed person is a crime under militaryas well as all other laws, then, are those who authorized as well as who carried out thekilling of Osama, who was unarmed, committed a crime? The fact that he was a massmurderer doesn’t alter the fact that he was killed while unarmed. If the killing of Osama is acrime, there is no tremendous victory for democracy and justice, neither had justice beendone. What we have here is an unjust act to correct many other unjust acts. Unjustnessversus Unjustness equals to Unjustness. Can we justify an unjust act by appealing to authority? If the killing of an unarmedOsama be considered just, what is the difference between him (Osama) who killed unarmedand innocent people and those who authorized and carried out his killing? The means doesnot justify the end, even if it is authorized. It would be like condoning authorized crimes insociety. A crime does not become just or legal because it is authorized. We know the quotethat says, “History is written by the victors.” Is the history of the killing of Osama Bin Laden
  2. 2. going to be written as “Justice had been done” by the victors. If so, we have now entered ahuman era, in which, the negative implications of the killing of Osama is going to createnegative precedence.Negative Precedence Global Assassination Policy Philip Sands (in BBC news) was troubled by what he considers as “moving to a placewhere you can have a global assassination policy for those who are perceived to causetrouble” In short, no one is going to be safe, as long as some persons (authorized) out therethinks somebody else is troubling to them, solution, kill. Global Assassination Policy wouldbe a very appropriate policy for dictators and authoritarian individuals and groups. Nowthey can hunt down dissidents of democracy who have fled to a third country. Nothing tocomplain as it might be an authorized operation (appeal to authority). Sacredness of life The sacredness of human life is now going to be determined by those who wieldpolitical powers. As long as there are politicians who advocate the end justifies the means,the sacredness of life will become a question of politics. Is it just or justice to take life basedon political decisions? Lost of national sovereignty It is interesting to note, that, despite the objections of Pakistan, who is one ofAmerica’s allies on the War on Terrorism, for the breach of Pakistani sovereignty by theunilateral military operation of USA - President Barack Obama has reiterated that, he woulddo it again, if it is necessary to protect its allies and itself. What seems to be projected hereis that, if, a country is an ally of USA, it must prepare to have its sovereignty to be breacheddeliberately and repeatedly without consultation and authorization, for what USA mightconsider as protecting its allies and itself. Wow! If this is the cost that a sovereign nationhas to pay to be an ally of USA, it amounts to a loss of sovereignty. Is it just or justice tobreach the sovereignty of another nation without consultation and authorization? WouldAmerica subject itself to the same policy by other nations? The above three precedence are examples of the results of what can happen whenunjust means are used to justify a just end. It has taken away what could really have been atremendous victory for democracy and justice. I am against all forms of terrorism, but Ibelieve in justness and justice for all persons, including for those who are criminals. Therejection of terrorists for the sacredness of life, justness and justice and for the respect ofthe sovereignties of nations should not make us to be unjust in our means and end topursue justness and justice.