Former Irish president Mary Robinson criticizes killing of bin Laden

just think what would happen IF he was captured...how many would suffer at the hands of his followers...

I ordinarily like my mass murderers brought to justice. However, in the case of the 9-11-'01 mass murderer I am just dunky hory over his fate. My your own affairs, Mary Robinson.

KILSALLY......... We'll get to grips with Sinn Fein after we forget the American Revolutionary War, which we won't. Had the Brits caught George Washington they would have hung him.

Taking bin Laden alive was not an option. Taking him prisoner would have motivated terrorist attempts to free him -- hostage situations in which bombers threaten to blow up school children unless he is released. Like the Allied plan to shoot Hitler if he were found alive, the summary execution of an enemy leader in war can prevent his followers from killing even more innocent people in desperate attempts to free him. Thank God Ms. Robinson and Dr. Williams, with all their skewed sensitivities, were not in charge of the Allied effort in World War II.

Isn`t the internet great. Perhaps `Irish` Americans are now getting to grips with the marxist ideology of Irish `Republicans` that they helped fund (Sinn Fein-IRA in particular).

DennisQ- the Law is an ever evolving form and must adapt to suit conditions. As it happens, that the laws are new does not make them any less valid. The fact remains that the laws were constitutionally enacted. My main issue with your earlier post however is that you somehow seem to suggest that "terrorists" should be protected by the Geneva Conventions. This is patently untrue and not the purpose for which the Geneva Conventions exist. The Geneva Conventions exists solely to protect the rights of soldiers engaged in international disputes.The Geneva Convention is meant to protect those that abide by the rules of law, not those that seek to exist outside it. The convention was drafted by civilised countries for civilised SOLDIERS. Thereby, you say there is no war declared by AQ on the USA? If so, why do you suggest that OBL obtain the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. If they arent at war, he cannot be a solidier. Somewhat dubious and self defeating do you not think?

There are centuries of jurisprudence behind the idea that the king is subject the the law of the land. That's what the Magna Carta was about. When we decide to throw over the rights of criminals we're going back to a time before due process. This is not only risky, it's completely unnecessary.

We're talking about shooting an unarmed man as opposed to taking him captive. Centuries of tradition support taking him captive, but only some recent legal theory supports shooting him. If the choice were between killing him or letting him get away, you might have an argument. But the actual choice is between following well-established procedure or not following it. No wonder Mary Robinson is "uncomfortable" about this departure from well-established tradition.

There are other considerations here as well. Did President Obama give the order to kill rather than capture because he wanted to appear to be tough on terrorism? He certainly got a lift in the polls, that's for sure. Even the notorious John Yoo, author of novel theories justifying torture, accused Mr Obama of ordering the kill because it's less messy than a trial. What kind of legal system bases itself on political considerations like popularity or saving the government from embarrassment? It's not the legal system that was handed down to us; it's one that was invented in the last few years.

Dennis Q, if you are a lawyer, god help your clients. The Geneva Convention explicity offers no protection to those people engaged in military conduct not of an international character. Far better men than you drafted the laws in 2006 taht allowed for the classification of unlawful enemy combatant. Furthermore, the laws passed muster with the US constitution from start to finish and have withstood constitutional challenges. Why afford the protections of the Geneva Conventions to those that are hell bent on destroying the system that created it. Your argument is a canard, the geneva conventions was drafted with the protections of terroists in mind. You suggest that terroism be dealt with by judicial process? Fat lot of good that did after the bombing of the Khobar towers and the USS Cole in Aden. Lets be honest, you want to tie one of Americas hands behind its back, dont you and masquerade it as your utter respect and vituous support of international law.

Robinson never criticized the british for their excessive cruelty in Ireland.We should realise anti Republican Mary started off life (in TCD) as a stickie. Who cares about her opinion it has no merit.

sirpeter, part of the reason people have difficulty understanding the idea of a legal principle as opposed to a legal whim is that the American government has been making up legal concepts for ten years. Just making it up! We are told, for example, that a spectacular attack can constitute a declaration of war. It can't, because terrorist gangs have no more standing to declare war than they have to sign peace treaties or negotiate fishing rights.

Terrorists are criminals, not soldiers. As criminals, they retain the rights of criminals including the right to confront their accusers and be served with a bill of particulars detailing the complaints against them. They have the right to cross-examine witnesses and argue their case in front of a jury.

Soldiers, on the other hand, are protected by the Geneva Accords. Taken prisoner, they can't be coerced into providing more than name, rank and serial number. The Bush administration, unhappy with having to decide which set of rights to grant detainees in their "war" on terror, created a new category entirely - that of enemy combatant - people with no rights at all. The problem is that there's no modern tradition behind such a designation; you'd have to go back to the Middle Ages to find examples of people with no rights.

We can't just go back to the Middle Ages as it suits us, because that exhibits contempt for legal tradition. For hundreds of years we've acknowledged the rights of criminal suspects. To abrogate those rights today would harm us far more than anything our acknowledged enemies have in mind.

DennisQ..What's so hard to understand what you just said.But for some reason.They don't

Due process is a legal principle, which is to say that you stick by it whether it's to your advantage or not. Criminal suspect Osama bin Laden was denied due process by being killed rather than arrested.

If we claim to live by legal principles, it's important that well-established procedures be followed, especially with unpopular defendants. If we're just going to blow in the wind we won't have a legal justice system at all. And we're headed that way. The president is claiming the right to kill without so much as an indictment. That's not legal principle; it's government making it up as it goes along. In the long run we're much worse off with a legal system that worries about popularity.

Well Mary the people in the twin towers were unarmed when the attack was made on them.Some of their bodies were never found .

Only the man that took the shot knows why he did. We weren't their so how can anyone voice any opinion.

yes - put him on trial and let the trial become a lightning rod for alquada recruitment. Better that by now the sharks have had their meal. Each deserves the other, but you cant blame the sharks, with an IQ of 2 or 3 for what they do.