No sentence for Obama, therefore, for the operation planned and carried out by stars and stripes commandos with the goal of "finishing off" the leader of Al Qaeda. Indeed, says "Catholic Civilization", the risks of a trial were many and with strong geopolitical implications. The Jesuit magazine evaluates very carefully and with realpolitik the death of Bin Laden and does not condemn the choice made by the Obama administration. The burial of Bin Laden at sea, is remembered, "it is not appropriate for a Muslim", however, he emphasizes, "it is easy to imagine that no country would accept the remains. Thus, the possibility of creating a place of pilgrimage was avoided".

The way in which the head of al Qaeda was killed gave rise to a debate "on the legitimacy and legality of the operation 'kill or capture'." Not releasing photos and video, however, "seemed to serve for not providing extremists useful means for their propaganda". After noting that, according to the White House, the operation was motivated by a direct order of the President towards an enemy "of humanity", it is observed: "Anyway, Bin Laden was dangerous. He had to be stopped. To presume his innocence was legally legitimate, but unreasonable". The "Catholic Civilization" then states that the "procedural truth" about the terrorist actions of Bin Laden "may be ascertained by other means", in particular, by prosecuting the Guantanamo detainees.

Yet the key questions, according to the influential Jesuit journal, are others: "Who in fact could reasonably believe that bin Laden was innocent? And that the result of a regular trial would not have been the maximum penalty? In addition, a long trial could have given the defendant an opportunity for propaganda and making revelations that are unpleasant even for the U.S. allies. Of course, that's the way the reasoning goes, if Bin Laden had been given a regular trial and without torture, would we not have assisted to yet another 'ode to death', no matter how lawful and legitimate? Yet, at the same time, a prisoner like bin Laden would have motivated his followers to capture hostages to secure the release of their hero".

Read more of the Jesuit magazine: Bin Laden a menace to mankind and had to be stopped

Indeed, it was so successful that it should force us to reconsider the presumption that the war in Afghanistan was necessary in the first place.

The logic is simple: if bin Laden was killed during a secret mission in Pakistan - a country with which America is not at war - could he and his followers have been captured or killed via the same strategy, without entering into a fully-fledged war in Afghanistan?

In just war theory, the relevant criterion of jus ad bellum - the right to wage war - is the requirement that war always be a last resort. If war may be precluded by some less violent, less catastrophic option, then we are obliged to take that option. If military raids and strikes against al Qaeda targets alone in Afghanistan were a feasible option, they ought to have been preferred over a full-scale war with the Taliban.

Instead, a decision was made by President Bush to:

"pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Bush's attitude is understandable, but it constituted a departure from the just war criterion of "last resort".

Continue reading more of the Just War theory, Bin Laden and Afghanistan

Image source: 3AW

While the post-Osama world continues to buzz with news of the hunting down of the Al Qaeda leader, Church and Christian groups are keeping a low profile across Pakistan.

Jamaat-e-Islami, the country's main religious party, called for protests today against the US raid and branded government and intelligence agencies incompetent.

"Institutions in the vicinity of Church buildings were closed as caution," said Yousaf Masih Yaad, a Christian scholar and analyst in Peshawar, neighboring Afghanistan.

"The threat of bombing has increased in the city which is already rocked to the extreme by Taliban," he said.

Six Christians have died in suicide blasts in this capital city of the northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

"Terrorism has affected Christians as well as Muslims. We have not shown interest in the bin Laden killing as it would enrage the militants," said the diocesan council member of the Church of Pakistan.

The Church in the country has not commented on the raid.

"Condemning a terrorist, who posed as an Islamic hero, can invite trouble for our community," said Khalid Gill, chief organizer of All Pakistan Minority Alliance. "The fight against religious extremism has been our core struggle but we stand with our agencies and government in defence of the sovereignty of the country."

The Christian political party lost its patron, Shahbaz Bhatti, a former Catholic federal minister for minorities, when he was murdered on March 2 in Islamabad. "Taliban al-Qaida Punjab"claimed responsibility for the assassination.

Despite the heightened tensions this week, security fears are nothing new to the country's Christians. The Christian majority Amritnagar village of Punjab province has been organizing "self help" night security details for a decade, an initiative which the locals started after the country was plunged into the "war on terror".

"Every house contributes 30 rupees (US$0.35) a month for the stipend of 12 men who keep watch with axes and guns. It has helped to avert any attack by fundamentalists as well as combat theft in the area," Mehran Khan, the village headman, told ucanews.com.

"People are cautious about discussing bin Laden in public. Though inwardly jubilant, they cannot condemn him in Muslim company," he said.

Source

• ucanews.com Reprinted with permission
• Image: Asia Society

In an interview with Piers Morgan, he said he believed the terror chief should have been put on trial in the U.S., but Americans were too scared.

"We've lost something of our soul", he said.

As scenes of jubilation at Osama's death were seen across New York, Moore said, "The world is a better place without him. To celebrate someone's death I think goes a step further... it's the way I was raised."

"A lot of people say "what would Jesus do?" I don't think Jesus would go down to Ground Zero like a lot of people did on Saturday night with champagne and pop corks and have a party", Moore said.

"Common sense tells you he was executed," Moore tells the Wrap in a new interview. "That was the plan all along. Just tell us that and quit treating us like children."

"I have a lot of faith in Obama," he adds, "but we've received three different stories in three days. We heard, "There was a firefight." "He used a woman as a shield." Now it turns out none of these things were true. He wasn't armed".

"I'm a Catholic", Moore said, and the position of the Catholic Church and the Pope is that we are 100 percent against the death penalty unless it is in self-defense.

Look at the Nuremberg Trials. We didn't just pop a bullet in the heads of the worst scum in history. We thought it was important to put them on trial and expose their evil. In a democracy we believe in a system of justice and we believe in a judicial system that gives people a day in court...and then we hang them.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has voiced his reservation about the manner of bin Laden's death.

"I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done. In those circumstances, I think it's also true that the different versions of events that have emerged in recent days have not done a great deal to help."

"I don't know the full details any more than anyone else; but I do believe that, in such circumstances, when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be served", Rowan Williams said.

Sources

• The Wrap
• Church Times
• Mail Online

The innovative Huffington Post looked at the question by asking a small sampling of American primary grade teachers how they decided to handle the rights or wrongs of his killing with their young charges. It was interesting to read how they attempted to provide information and process class discussions without undue indoctrination or emotion.

President Obama in a somber and non vengeful manner announced that bin Laden's death was the end result of a firefight. This indicated that death rather than capture was the only option. He concluded with the words "… one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America." His demeanour was in contrast to the jubilation and delight of crowds across the United States.

Yet the fact remains that an unarmed man was killed in cold blood rather than captured and tried under the rule of law. Was that the lesser of two evils? Would his capture have resulted in greater retribution and terror than his killing would undoubtedly cause? Mainstream Christian leaders, Catholic and Protestant, have been cautious in their comment. While they have condemned terror and bin Laden's atrocities, I haven't seen one public statement from them that the killing was morally wrong. Was it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in dealing with the question of crime and punishment under the heading ‘Legitimate Defence', tends to be somewhat nuanced and open to different interpretations. But it states: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." (2267)

St Paul writes "Never try to get revenge; leave that my friends to God's anger. As scripture says: Vengeance is mine - I will pay them back, the Lord promises." (Romans 12:19)

A moral dilemma indeed.

Lyndsay Freer

Huffington Post Article

"9/11 happened before my students were even born," she said. "It makes it hard to truly tell them in an appropriate way what is going on."

Yarzabek teaches 22 six-year-olds from various backgrounds. Her class includes English language learners, including Spanish-speaker Alejandro, who told Yarzabek that bin Laden should have been imprisoned, rather than killed. It also included Adwaith, of India, who understood exactly what was going on.

How was she supposed to handle the situation?

As pundits, national security experts and news outlets try to analyze the ramifications of bin Laden's death, teachers across the country face the challenge of teaching a dramatic event in real time. Under pressure of Advanced Placement exams and state tests, they are curtailing their curricula to address the news of the day — a story they simply couldn't ignore.

This set of circumstances puts the teacher in a critical role, said Margaret Berci, an expert in K-12 Social Studies who works in the education department at the College of Staten Island. "One of the major challenges is to make sure we do not indoctrinate," she said.

Yarzabek said she wanted to wait a day before discussing the news in class. She wanted to give parents time to present it to their children in their own way, and to give herself time to process it. "More of my kids will come in tomorrow with questions," she said. "They're not just babies — they're curious about everything."

She remembered being ushered from her high school psychology class into a prayer service held by her Catholic school when the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

"I think about the intense emotion I felt then," she said. "I not only want to teach the event, but tap into their emotions."

Read more of Teaching Osama Bin Laden's Death In The Classroom

Source:

• Image: Gawker Assets