Wednesday, 4 May 2011


Some hyper-busy times, but recent 'termination' of Osama Bin Laden prompted another overdue entry here...

As someone put it, after World War II, the Nuremberg trial was there to show that civilisation prevails over barbaric violence. Emotions may have demanded violent retaliations, but reason demanded a process by which the victors show that they are above such methods.

It is interesting then to hear how Obama used the word 'justice'. Presumably with capital 'j'.

If we remove again what emotions dictate, can we call a summary execution-style killing of the 'embodiment of evil' a process by which justice was served?

Yes it is a closure for many. It is a certain and quick end to ten years of uncertainties (let's remove the conspiracy theories about Bin Laden being still alive... Occam's razor is very effective, as with most such theories, to make that cut).

But... justice? as defined by the Western civilisation's norms that we say we uphold? against which we compare the barbaric but calculated evil of such terrorist masterminds and their accolades?

Certain dictator were also executed, some, like Ceausescu and his wife, after a summary 'trial'. Latter case had an element of 'justice' in the sense of a short mock trial having preceded the executions.

But... one, still with cold reason and removing emotions, can not find 'justice' in what happened to Bin Laden. No matter how 'satisfying' the end of this most wanted man was/is.

Bush used the words 'holy war' and gosh, what a blunder that was. Obama used 'justice', and whilst it is not such a spectacular semantic disaster, it is regrettable.

No comments: