UN rights boss asks US for facts on bin Laden killing

So, is this leading up to obama being declared the latest U.S. presidential "war criminal"?

source

Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the al Qaeda leader, killed in a U.S. operation in Pakistan on Sunday, was a "very dangerous man" who had claimed "command responsibility for the most appalling acts of terrorism", including the Sept. 11 attacks on America nearly a decade ago.

"This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasised that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law," she said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.

The German paper Der Spiegel seems to be asking the same question here ...

source

US President Barack Obama gets precious few opportunities to announce a victory. So it's no wonder he chose grand words on Sunday night as the TV crews' spotlights shone upon him and he informed the nation about the deadly strike against Osama bin Laden. "Justice has been done," he said.

It may be that this sentence comes back to haunt him in the years to come. What is just about killing a feared terrorist in his home in the middle of Pakistan? For the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and for patriotic Americans who saw their grand nation challenged by a band of criminals, the answer might be simple. But international law experts, who have been grappling with the question of the legal status of the US-led war on terror for years, find Obama's pithy words on Sunday night more problematic.
Claus Kress, an international law professor at the University of Cologne, argues that achieving retributive justice for crimes, difficult as that may be, is "not achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial."

barack is just another pawn in a massive game of chess

Originally posted by davesmart
barack is just another pawn in a massive game of chess

Perhaps.

But this is why I also cautioned members in the past against jumping on the "Bush is a war criminal" bandwagon, because it sets a precedent that would effectively tie the hands of ANY president. Any other world leader, as well.

If the chosen son had any fortitude he should either say "No!" or submit a list of all those killed by the 9-11 attacks and then say "Any questions?"

Well, I can dream, can't I.

reply to post by centurion1211



Navi Pillay can shut the hell up and have a coke and a smile. Her commission is a joke.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by davesmart
barack is just another pawn in a massive game of chess

Perhaps.

But this is why I also cautioned members in the past against jumping on the "Bush is a war criminal" bandwagon, because it sets a precedent that would effectively tie the hands of ANY president. Any other world leader, as well.

If by tying their hands you mean not letting them commit war crimes and lie to their people then I say tie away

correct me if i am wrong here but the un did absolutely nothing to prevent 9-11

so..........................the un can go to h e double hockey sticks and i am stickin with my homeland.

kick the un out and let them eat cake

Originally posted by UcDat

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by davesmart
barack is just another pawn in a massive game of chess

Perhaps.

But this is why I also cautioned members in the past against jumping on the "Bush is a war criminal" bandwagon, because it sets a precedent that would effectively tie the hands of ANY president. Any other world leader, as well.

If by tying their hands you mean not letting them commit war crimes and lie to their people then I say tie away

So, are you now saying that obama is a war criminal?

Like Bush?

Did you once support obama?

Just asking ...