Osama bin Laden and the question of justice

Quote
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  Cicero.

 

News

The killing of Osama bin Laden has led to a heated debate about the necessity and legality of the action by the US military last week.  There are two underlying questions: first, what was the extent of bin Laden’s responsibility for the indiscriminate killing of thousands of unarmed civilians?  Was he effectively the commander of a military force still at war with America?  If that was indeed the case, then killing him (whether he was armed or not) was justified according to the rules of war – a view widely held in America and supported by the Attorney General.

If there is any uncertainty about the first question, then a second one is this: was it justified to shoot bin Laden in his own home, when he had been indicted for trial?  Could this amount to an extrajudicial killing under civil law, which would undermine the rule of law and right to a fair trial, two of the democratic values which America is promoting in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan?  

From a relational perspective, which was the lesser evil: killing bin Laden unarmed and in front of family members, or capturing him and bringing him to public trial?  Initially one might think the latter – but this would have promoted the terrorist’s cause, inflamed extremist opposition to the West and probably led to Al Qaeda networks taking Americans hostage somewhere round the world and demanding their leader’s release.  Although there is high risk of reprisals by Al Qaeda now, the time for them will pass.  But a lengthy trial would have brought a more insidious risk for a much longer period to a greater number of unarmed people.     

Thinking relationally helps to shed light on the wider dilemma.  Human rights – including the right to a fair trial – should be understood in their relational context.  Rights can only be granted and upheld by means of relationships with other people, acting individually or as representatives of an institution. 

Consequently, a narrow, individualistic concept of human rights, uprooted from its wider relational context, can produce nonsensical outcomes such as society being obliged to uphold the right of an individual to destroy the very society which granted him that right.

Killing as opposed to capturing Osama bin Laden on May 2nd may end up saving thousands of civilian lives and averting relational tragedy for countless networks of families and friends.  On other hand, when an American president authorizes the killing of a man without trial and outside the rule of law, this may legitimize autocratic regimes in disposing of dissidents without recourse to judicial process. 

Such choices are hard, and we would do well to weigh the rights and wrongs of this incident carefully – and relationally.

Read on...

Li-ann Thio, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore, has reflected on the tension between the rights of an individual and the interests of society in a paper “Constitutionalism in Singapore: through a Relational Lens”.  You can read an extract from the paper here. 

Walk the talk

It can be easy to pass judgment on others whom we scarcely know, on the basis of hearsay and rumour.  

Is there anyone in that category over whom you might suspend your judgment for a while, with a view to getting to know them better first so that your judgment is a more considered one?  

The last word
From the Bible, Proverbs 18:17 “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”