The Osama Trial

In regards of Ba’asyir trial, let me posit a simple question, does Osama also deserve the same trial?

My quick response would be, no. Here’s why?

1. From long time ago, since 9/11, Osama was asked to surrender. But he refused to comply and rather die than to give up, thus legal aspect is no longer relevant.

2. Even more, he had admitted that he was the perpetrator of the attack through his propaganda videos. He even endorsed his supporters to commit the same terrorist acts. This ascertained the fact that he was indeed guilty, thus no need for trial, for such confession was enough to establish mens rea and actus reus needed to indict him.

3. There is no need, especially for the victim, to know how and why Osama did that act. They just need to know that this terrorists will stop, and the lengthy process of trial (especially the debate over which jurisdiction will be used) will shift government focus and blur the essence of closure towards the case.

4. Trial will further belittle society suffering, because it will open up the idea that Osama’s ideology and terrorist act are acceptable (on the basis of presumption of innocence). Furthermore, a writ of habeas corpus needs physical presence of Osama, which in turns may give room for public interaction that could spread fear, aggravate the pain of victim, or even trigger retaliation of terrorist members thus compromising societal security.

5. Under International Humanitarian Law, it’s been allowed to employ deadly force if the military is certain that there will be retaliation from terrorist member. Assuming Osama would decline to be restrained (which he did) and there would be terrorist members in his compound, then the killing of Osama was justified. Furthermore, International Human Right Law allows the killing of rebellion commander as well. Using the rationale that Al-Qaeda is an “organized armed group” engaged in an “armed conflict” then suffice it to say that those laws are applicable.

Well, what do you have in mind?