Biden looks like he is watching an episode of Modern Family or something.

My opinion on this is so out of step of what the popular opinion seems to be that I'm almost frightened to publicly announce it. However, I think when we reach that stage when it seems as if one point of view must be adopted by all then it's all the more important to step forward and give your opposing view.

I think it is indisputable that justice can only come about through law, and that law, therefore, is the foundation of civilization. Far to many people have confused retribution for justice and perhaps it's this move away from maintaining the principles of a decent society that has led to the problems we currently find ourselves in. Any benefit in the killing of Osama Bin Laden is far out weighed by the sight of our leaders triumphantly describing extra judicial killing as 'justice'. By claiming so, thousands of years progress slips away and we adopt the code of the barbarian.

We will probably never really know what happened in the compound but I accept it may not have been possible to take Bin Laden alive. However it is obvious, 10 years on, without a single trial of any note in the US or UK, that the policy of is not one of law and justice, but one of extermination, torture and vengeance. That is a way which only points to the rapid debasement of our society.

When even the state, which should offer sobriety and moderation in opposition to rabid emotionalism, is in thrall to such passions, then we find ourselves in an extremely worrying condition. We adopt an irrationality that allows not only individuals who may or may not be criminals and terrorists to be killed without due process, but which also allows a mindset where tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people who had no connection whatsoever to terrorism or Al Qaeda, die at our hand.

In 1945, the Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity much greater than anything Al Qaeda could ever even conceive, tens of millions of lives rather than thousands, yet the process of law was afforded to them because the long hard struggle to defeat fascism had meant further millions laying down their lives on the battlefield to defend the principles of civilization. That sacrifice demanded that justice must be seen to be done, through evidence, in court, by the law at a time when entire continents were still obliterated and smoldering, populations of previously thriving and cultured cities starved and the murdered corpses of the innocent lay in hillocks of tangled limbs.

Today we should look back to that generation who suffered so much more than we have, or can ever even imagine, yet who behaved with such moderation, upholding the way of the civilized society, trusting the institution of law to give them the appropriate level of justice in each individual case against each individual criminal. Some of those tried went to the scaffold, others received prison sentences, others walked away free. There was no great triumphalist howl for blood, just the sifting of papers, evidence delivered and judgments given based on the law, the keystone of the very civilization that had almost been annihilated.

Today we have gone backwards. We have betrayed our grandparents that endured so much to protect the principles that were so important to them, principles which should also be important to us. It seems to me our society is the opposite of theirs. It is weak where they were strong, it shows fear, where they showed bravery, it lacks faith in its own belief in civilization, when they showed utter conviction in it. These days should not be days of bombast and back slapping, more serious reflection on what has happen in the past ten years. If ever there was a time to end this retrogressive impulse which every day reverses, little by little, the forward momentum of centuries of Western civilizing thought, that time is now.

The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing's legality.

Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.

Some are asking was it an "execution" or an "assassination"?

The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations.

"In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, echoed Barack Obama's assertion, stating: "Osama bin Laden is dead and justice has been done."

A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department.

He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing.

"But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.

"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law."

He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations.

"But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of war – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George W Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate.

"The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote.

"The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence.

"The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."

Human rights groups have reacted with caution. "Osama bin Laden took credit for and supported acts around the world which amounted to crimes against humanity," said Claudio Cordone, senior director at Amnesty International.

"He also inspired others to commit grave human rights abuses. His death will put an end to his role in organising or inspiring such criminal acts.

"We do not know the full circumstances of his killing and the others with him and we are looking into that."

One area of anxiety is the suggestion that the intelligence needed to locate Bin Laden's refuge might have been obtained through torture of suspects detained at Guantánamo Bay or other secret holding centres.

Whether or not the Pakistan government authorised the assault on its territory might technically affect the legality of the operation under international law.

But the enthusiastic support of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for the killing is likely to silence any critical voices in the security council.

"The death of Osama bin Laden … is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism," Ban said. "Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done."

the destruction of Dresden was probably a war crime

\
As in the quick leap to conclude that "see, the practices of torture got the intelligence that led to OBL." There is no reason to conclude this.... some just a want to defend torture.

No way in hell he wrote that "letter".

i thought the exact same thing!

he was ENTERTAINED!!!

I pretty much agree with Darrin. Also, I've never really bought into the idea that we are war against terrorism. Terrorism is a crime not an act of war.

But what I really came here to say was:



then it couldn't have been Modern Family.

You realize we all sound like toadies from the Bush administration, right? "HE WAS AN ENEMY COMBATANT!" etc