Osama bin Laden's death was mostly welcomed with open arms across the political spectrum yesterday, with Prime Minister John Key saying the world was now a safer place.
But the Green Party says it would have been better to arrest bin Laden so he could stand trial.
Once again the Greens are out-of-step with everyone else in Parliament; here's the money quote:
But Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said it would have been better to take bin Laden alive so he could face trial.
He would not say if he welcomed the death of bin Laden.
"Basically there's been an assassination, and I'm not going to go around supporting assassinations. It really isn't very becoming for the greatest democracy in the world to go around assassinating people, no matter how bad they are.
It's not very becoming for a political party leader to protest against visiting dignitaries within the precincts of Parliament either. Perhaps Russel Norman is angling for another lunch with the US Ambassador, and another US-funded trip to Washington ...
11 comments:
A serious question. Is it right for a state to assassinate people, rather than apply the rule of law? The US has made it clear today that they went to kill Bin Laden. Is that acceptable behaviour? If so, can any state take that position on someone who has committed crimes (however heinous)? Where does the rule of law end and arbitrary death take over? This is not sophistry. This is absolutely central to functioning of a civilised society.
RW - only Gaddaffi and Mugabe to go.
In extreme circumstances assassination can be justified in my view.
War is about killing people.
USA is at war with Bin Laden and his outfit, declared, I believe, by the late and unlamented (around my place) Mr Bin Laden I believe.
Hence RW, USA representatives killing Bin Laden was both right and correct.
So:
a) when is extreme, extreme?
b) why do we have the rules of war for civilised countries if they can be flouted? This is a non-Westphalian conflict. It is not "war" as commonly understood. The rule of law still applies
INV2. Just because your principles are based on belief in a supernatural being shouldn't mean you dismiss those who's principles are based on more rational considerations. The man you believe was the son of god (that cracks me up!) was killed because he was a threat to the political powers of the time. He was a true activist. Should he have been assassinated or did he deserve his trial?
RW-
"if they can be flouted?"
Flouted? FLOUTED?
What a stupid and prissy word this becomes when used in describing the attacks in which the 2740 Americans died.
are you suggesting Robert, that the Seals should have given the courier a note asking him to come outside with his hands on his head??
The scum sucking mutant is dead .. who is next?
your prissy attitude to these scumbags is why they are so strong.
and Robert and others. I think our cops should have shot the Burton guy in the head and not his leg and the SAS are heroes to take out the gutless pricks who place bombs on roadways to kill people.
I rather think "Jabba", in an inimitable way, makes my point for me.
thanks Bob
The sad thing is that Jabba thinks the world would be a better place with more Jabbas. Oh dear how sad never mind I opine in my ever humble opinion, for what it's worth. (Did I ever tell you I worship John Key almost as much as I adore this fellow who was written about over 2000 years ago and whose teachings I slant for political gain? I have. Oh, ok I'll shut up then.)
Post a Comment