The document critiques the justification of Osama bin Laden's killing, arguing that it was an unjust act despite having governmental and legal endorsements. It highlights the moral implications of prioritizing political decisions over the sanctity of human life and the potential for establishing a dangerous global assassination policy. Ultimately, the text warns against using unjust means to achieve purportedly just ends, emphasizing the importance of justice for all individuals, including criminals.

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 the
context of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, It could have been a tremendous victory for
democracy 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 authorizations
of both houses of Congress, UN, and President Barack Obama. BBC news reports, that, after
Osama’s killing, US officials justified it, as being part of the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, an
act of national self-defence, and as being legal to target enemy commanders. Can we say
that all these reasons for authorizing the killing were just? Let’s say, “Yes.” If the killing of
Osama had all the necessary authorizations and reasons and it was just, why kill him when
he 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 assertion
of Benjamin Ferencz, who according to BBC news argued that, “it would have been better to
capture Bin Laden and send him to court. Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is
a crime under military law as well as all other law,"
Why kill an unarmed Osama? If killing an unarmed person is a crime under military
as well as all other laws, then, are those who authorized as well as who carried out the
killing of Osama, who was unarmed, committed a crime? The fact that he was a mass
murderer doesn’t alter the fact that he was killed while unarmed. If the killing of Osama is a
crime, there is no tremendous victory for democracy and justice, neither had justice been
done. What we have here is an unjust act to correct many other unjust acts. Unjustness
versus Unjustness equals to Unjustness.
Can we justify an unjust act by appealing to authority? If the killing of an unarmed
Osama be considered just, what is the difference between him (Osama) who killed unarmed
and innocent people and those who authorized and carried out his killing? The means does
not justify the end, even if it is authorized. It would be like condoning authorized crimes in
society. A crime does not become just or legal because it is authorized. We know the quote
that says, “History is written by the victors.” Is the history of the killing of Osama Bin Laden

2. going to be written as “Justice had been done” by the victors. If so, we have now entered a
human era, in which, the negative implications of the killing of Osama is going to create
negative precedence.
Negative Precedence
Global Assassination Policy
Philip Sands (in BBC news) was troubled by what he considers as “moving to a place
where you can have a global assassination policy for those who are perceived to cause
trouble” In short, no one is going to be safe, as long as some persons (authorized) out there
thinks somebody else is troubling to them, solution, kill. Global Assassination Policy would
be a very appropriate policy for dictators and authoritarian individuals and groups. Now
they can hunt down dissidents of democracy who have fled to a third country. Nothing to
complain 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 wield
political 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 based
on political decisions?
Lost of national sovereignty
It is interesting to note, that, despite the objections of Pakistan, who is one of
America’s allies on the War on Terrorism, for the breach of Pakistani sovereignty by the
unilateral military operation of USA - President Barack Obama has reiterated that, he would
do it again, if it is necessary to protect its allies and itself. What seems to be projected here
is that, if, a country is an ally of USA, it must prepare to have its sovereignty to be breached
deliberately and repeatedly without consultation and authorization, for what USA might
consider as protecting its allies and itself. Wow! If this is the cost that a sovereign nation
has to pay to be an ally of USA, it amounts to a loss of sovereignty. Is it just or justice to
breach the sovereignty of another nation without consultation and authorization? Would
America subject itself to the same policy by other nations?
The above three precedence are examples of the results of what can happen when
unjust means are used to justify a just end. It has taken away what could really have been a
tremendous victory for democracy and justice. I am against all forms of terrorism, but I
believe in justness and justice for all persons, including for those who are criminals. The
rejection of terrorists for the sacredness of life, justness and justice and for the respect of
the sovereignties of nations should not make us to be unjust in our means and end to
pursue justness and justice.