"We got him", "Rot in Hell", "Justice has been done", were the headlines that trumpeted on U.S. based tabloids echoing the jubilation across America after President Barack Obama announced that a U.S. military commando had captured and killed Osama bin Laden. But questions have aroused globally - was this very appropriate, legal, ethical and diplomatic act by U.S.? Susan Ullas reports for Times of India.
Killing Osama was a definite and a determined decesion by U.S. "Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive," Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers on March 17, 2010.
During a heated exchange with Republican congressmen, Holder predicted that "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" rather than to the U.S. public enemy number one in captivity. This shows that even if U.S. had an option to keep him alive, they intentionally ignored the option.
When asked our Gen Y about the act of U.S., Students of National Law School of India University said that, what U.S. did was not right and in fact it has lots to learn from India.
Manasa Sundarraman, a first-year student said, "What India is doing to Kasab is the right thing. India is giving a fair trial. As a law student, I would certainly appreciate that any convict deserves it. We did not choose to kill and we acted responsibly. It was like a head vs. heart decision."
They said killing one person was actually fruitless and that does not help to eliminate terrorism. Everything needs to be approached from the grass root level and not take the top down approach.
Ex-Deputy Chief Minister Chhagan Bhujbal of Maharashtra said, "Kasab was given a fair trial. It was not as if he was caught and hanged or shot. Our democracy has given a chance to Kasab. We produced papers, photographs, witnesses in court." Asked whether he feels the verdict took a long time to come, Bhujbal said, "We wanted to prove to the world that here is a guy who came from Pakistan and committed the heinous crime."
Executive Director, Human Rights Law, Colin Gonsalves brought forth the point of fair judgment for India not Kasab. He said the requirement for a fair trial was not just for Kasab's sake but also for the sake of the Indian citizens who deserved the security of knowing that the correct people had been nabbed, which was only possible after a fair trial.
"Protection of all his rights under the international human rights law is not to protect one individual but to uphold the basic norms of law and human rights. The question is not whether he deserves our sympathy or not, the question is whether we abide by our Constitution and cherish the principles enshrined in it." said Nandita Haksar, a writer and a human rights lawyer.
Not an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, India has got it right by giving a fair trial for Ajmal Kasab, But U.S. is under immense criticism by all nations including the Human Rights Watch.
Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth criticized Ban Ki-moon , Secretary General of United Nations for calling the killing of Osama bin Laden an act of justice when actually the Al Qaeda leader was denied a fair trial.
A Human Rights Watch statement originally said, "The United States should help to support the basic rights of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, free from the threat of those who perpetrate international crimes."
Iain Levine, a deputy executive director at Human Rights Watch said, "His (Bin Laden's) death should also bring an end to a horrific chapter of human rights abuses in the name of counter-terrorism."
Human Right Watch amended online comments on their website to state significantly changing the essence of the message; "At a time when citizens around the world have engaged in peaceful demonstrations in the name of freedom and democracy, Bin Laden?s death is a reminder of the thousands of innocents who suffer when terrorist groups seek political change through brutal means."
Login to add comments on this post.