[ 2011-05-05 ]

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams

Archbishop of Canterbury condemns killing of bin Laden
The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned the
manner in which Osama bin Laden was killed after
the White House admitted that he was not carrying
a weapon at the time of his death.

His remarks came as a US official said that only
one of the five people killed in the raid on bin
Laden’s compound in the Pakistani town of
Abbottabad had been armed.

In his first comments on the demise of the
al-Qaeda chief, Dr Rowan Williams said today: “I
think that 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 these circumstances.

“I think it is also true that the different
versions of events which have emerged in recent
days have not done a great deal to help
people.”
The Archbishop, who has made building relations
with Muslims a central plank of his ministry,
continued: “I don’t know the full details any
more than anyone else does but I do believe that
in such circumstances, when we are faced with
someone who is manifestly, was manifestly, a war
criminal, as you might say, in terms of atrocities
inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to
be done.”

The Archbishop’s comments came after several
days of conflicting accounts from the White House
as to the exact circumstances of bin Laden’s
death during a raid on his compound in the
Pakistani town of Abbottabad in the early hours of
Monday.

White House staff first claimed that the
54-year-old was armed and resisting arrest when
the team of US Navy Seals burst into the compound,
then conceded that he had been unarmed.

Sources in the US Administration are now claiming
that bin Laden had both an AK-47 assault rifle and
a handgun within reach but a senior US defence
official gave an account of events that
contradicted intial reports of a prolonged and
chaotic firefight.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said that the operation was a precision,
floor-by-floor mission through the high-walled
compound.

Only one person encountered in the raid was armed
and fired a shot — and he was killed only
minutes after it began. The other four people
killed were all unarmed.

The CIA has dismissed as false reports that
appeared yesterday on the al-Arabiya news network
claiming that bin Laden was captured alive and was
eventually shot dead ten minutes later when he no
longer posed a threat.

Al-Arabiya said that claim had been made by bin
Laden’s 12-year-old daughter, Safia, during
questioning by Pakistani intelligence. Safia was
one of a number of women and children recovered
from the compound after the raid.

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, and other
officials have said that the commandos had full
authority to kill bin Laden during the raid unless
he made a clear attempt to surrender.

But the question of whether bin Laden was armed at
the time of his death raises issues as to the
lawfulness of the killing given that
assassinations are illegal under US domestic law.
Execution-style killings are not permitted under
international law, which states that the target
must be given a chance to surrender and can only
be shot if they resist.

The White House has yet to publish the video
footage of the killing that could resolve exactly
what did happen inside the compound in Abbottabad.
Mr Obama watched the incident unfold, beamed live
to the White House situation room via webcams on
the helmets of the US special forces troops.

Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General, told a
Senate hearing that the raid during which bin
Laden was killed “was lawful and consistent with
our values”.

But Navi Pillay, the UN’s High Commissioner for
Human Rights, called today for “a full
disclosure” of the facts to determine the
legality of the killing of the al-Qaeda leader.
“I’m still for a full disclosure of the
accurate facts,” Ms Pillay, a former war crimes
judge, told reporters in Oslo.

“I think it’s not just my office but anybody
is entitled to know exactly what happened,” she
added.

“The United Nations condemns terrorism but it
also has basic rules of how counter-terrorism
activity has to be carried out. It has to be in
compliance with international law,” Ms Pillay
said. “For instance, you’re not allowed ... to
commit torture or extra-judicial killings.

“This was a complex operation and it would be
helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding
his killing. The UN has consistently emphasised
that all counter-terrorism acts must respect
international law,” she added.

“If he was captured and brought before a court,
I have no doubt he would have been charged with
the most serious crimes, including the mass murder
of civilians that took place on 9/11, which were
planned and systematic and in my view amounted to
crime against humanity.”

Ms Pillay’s comments reflect widespread unease
in European capitals at the manner of bin
Laden’s demise — and the celebrations it
sparked in the US.

The Dalai Lama, exiled spiritual leader of Tibet
who is known for his pacificism and compassion,
said the US may have been justified in killing bin
Laden.

Speaking on Tuesday night at Southern California
University, he said: “In the case of bin Laden,
his action was of course destructive and the
September 11 events killed thousands of people. So
his action must be brought to justice.”

He said that if something is serious and it is
necessary to take counter-measures, these have to
be taken. Possible forgiveness for the terrorist
“did not mean that one should forget what has
been done”, the Dalai Lama said.

He spoke during his first visit to the US since
stepping down earlier this year as the day-to-day
political leader of Tibet’s Government in
exile.

In responses to military action, church leaders
are guided by the “just war” theory developed
by Thomas Aquinas.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists four
conditions for military action, including where
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the
nation or community of nations must be lasting,
grave, and certain, and all other means of putting
an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective. There must be serious
prospects of success and the use of arms must not
produce evils and disorders graver than the evil
to be eliminated.

Supporters of the killing of bin Laden argue it
was supported by “just war” theory because it
was done under legitimate authority, for public
benefit and done openly.

However, there are increasing doubts being voiced
among senior Church leaders about the killing.

Dr Charles Reed, foreign policy adviser for the
Church of England, said: “Part of the problem,
as Archbishop Rowan made clear, is that we do not
know what actually happened. It is really hard to
know whether it was an intentional killing or an
accidental killing. What Rowan Williams was
pointing to was that legally and ethically, the
whole area of judicial killing or targeted
assassination is hugely problematic. The idea that
justice can be done in a summary way without
recourse to legal instruments is problematic.”

Helmut Schmidt, the former West German Chancellor,
said that it was “quite clearly a violation of
international law” and Cecilia Malmstrom, the
European Union Home Affairs Commissioner, said
that she would have preferred to see bin Laden
before a court.

Ken Livingstone, the former London Mayor, said
that President Obama had been left looking like a
gangland boss rather than a statesman for ordering
bin Laden’s killing.

Mr Livingstone, Labour’s candidate in next
year’s mayoral election,said that America should
have tried to take the al-Qaeda leader alive
rather than ordering what amounted to an
execution.

“This undermines any commitment to democracy and
trial by jury and makes Obama look like some sort
of mobster,” said Mr Livingstone.

He also warned that the US raid on Pakistani soil
would provoke reprisals that left Britain less
safe.

“I just looked at it and realised that it would
increase the likelihood of a terror attack on
London,” Mr Livingstone added.

“That’s very much the American style but I
don’t think I’ve ever felt pleased at the
death of anybody. The real problem for London is
that after America we’re a big target so it’s
a very dangerous time at the moment.”

He added: “We should have captured him and put
him on trial. It’s a simple point — are we
gangsters or a Western democracy based on the rule
of law?”

Source - The Times(UK)

... go Back