139 Comments

• millstreet | May 13, 2011, 12:04 AM EDT

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

• ciarrai | May 12, 2011, 06:01 PM EDT

  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.

• falconflash | May 12, 2011, 11:18 AM EDT

  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.

• jmKelley | May 12, 2011, 10:03 AM EDT

  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.

• Kilsally | May 12, 2011, 08:24 AM EDT

  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).

• Windmaker | May 12, 2011, 06:18 AM EDT

  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?

• DennisQ | May 12, 2011, 05:52 AM EDT

  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.

• Windmaker | May 12, 2011, 05:21 AM EDT

  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.

• seanomelbourne | May 12, 2011, 01:58 AM EDT

  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.

• DennisQ | May 12, 2011, 12:48 AM EDT

  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.

• sirpeter | May 11, 2011, 08:54 PM EDT

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

• DennisQ | May 11, 2011, 07:27 PM EDT

  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.

• eileen murphy | May 11, 2011, 06:57 PM EDT

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

• JimMcGarity | May 11, 2011, 06:05 PM EDT

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

• SteveMD2 | May 11, 2011, 05:47 PM EDT

  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.

• SteveMD2 | May 11, 2011, 05:45 PM EDT

  yES - PUT HIM ON TRIAL AND

• bullocks | May 11, 2011, 05:43 PM EDT

  no prejudices there the fritz?

• fritzmits | May 11, 2011, 05:02 PM EDT

  By the by when does an good Irish woman give a rats ass what a stinking Archibishop of Prod land says?

• fritzmits | May 11, 2011, 04:58 PM EDT

  Two guns and a knife in the room and if you were in this war zone you would know that unless someone is buck naked they might just blow you up and since his stated desire was to die killing as many as he could take with him one had to assume he would be ready and willing to do so.

• bullocks | May 11, 2011, 03:46 PM EDT

  windmaker quote:"The USA has done much to support democratic activists from Iran to Syria over the last 20 years. Again, some recognition should be due"and quote: "The US didnt put Saleh there However, he serves a purpose.The US backed Saleh because he allowed American strikes on A'Q in Yemen, no other reason". These statements are at odds, the US must shoulder some responsibly for these dictators.these people are dying by US bullets.basically the response is "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". Quote:"However, if you are asking me who I would prefer to see in power in Yemen, Saleh or A'Q, Il take Saleh any time. If you think Saleh is bad, wait until you see what comes after him".while every one is entitled to an opinion,only the people of the country in question should have a say in the government of that country.if the US is supporting these dictators then how can you not see a correlation between this and the anti american feeling in these countries. quote:"You see, the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt... "the US has tried the (if it does) bit ,perhaps its time to try the (if it doesn't).and as sirpeter said try feeding your own people instead.

• sirpeter | May 11, 2011, 02:25 PM EDT

  BTW..Noam Chomsky.Never liked him.But he does have some good points.

• sirpeter | May 11, 2011, 02:21 PM EDT

  Windmaker..Change class war to haves and have nots if it makes you feel better.Oddly enough I have never experienced the emotion of jealousy towards anybody.But I think you are confused between jealousy and anger.See I consider jealousy infantile,but I consider anger by those in dire poverty perfectly reasonable.You can use the term war for lots of different struggles in the world.Never said there wasn't a military war on in Iraq and Afghanistan,you jumped to that conclusion.I was referring to those who are struggling to survive because of extreme poverty. You're judging the Muslim people by the standards you were educated to believe and grew up with and complain about honour killings. I consider the death penalty in USA to be almost as barbarous.Most if not all of Europe has matured on from that.But that's where America is at the moment,just as honour killings are where the Muslims are. Both are wrong in my eyes and I'm not alone in believing that. You're wrong about Saddam. The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was funded by the CIA.The CIA saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one.Be it Europe or the US who armed him it's all the same,the US wanted him armed too. America has supported loads of dictators in Latin America and around the world.Here is a few of the good ones you might know.Best sit down Windmaker: Idi Amin,Anastasio Somoza,Augusto Ugarte Pinnochet,Fulgencio Batista,Muammar al-Qaddafi,Noriega,Francois Duvalier. I could go on and on, all ruthless murderers funded and supported by the CIA at some stage. No moving targets Windmaker.Remember Google is your friend.

• Reilleyfam | May 11, 2011, 01:49 PM EDT

  You can hate Bin Laden and agree with the premise that an unarmed fugitive should be arrested not murdered...at least until he's had a trial. Otherwise what separates us from animals?

• Windmaker | May 11, 2011, 12:11 PM EDT

  Sirpeter- Class war? The politics of jealousy gets no-one anywhere. Furthermore, euphenisms and catch phrases such as "there is no war etc" are indeed nice sentiments but regrettably infantile. There is a war, and in fact, wars on. Tell the parents of those who lost children in Iraq, Afghanistan, that there is no war. They might be somewhat miffed. Your moral equivalence between the west and the arab world is pretty standard fare among Noam Chomsky followers. You say women did not have the vote? True, but nor where they subjected to various honour killings in the name of Allah. It makes light of the actual sustained horrors that women in the arab world suffer to equate their treatment to the treatment of women in the west during the earlier half of the 20th century. Women in the 20th century in the west were not treated as chattel as they are now in many muslim nations. Saddam was not supported by the USA. Indeed it was Henry Kissinger who said it best when he said that he wished both sides could lose in the Iran/Iraq war. Furthermore, contrary to the lies of many of the anti-war left, it wasnt the US that armed Saddam but others in the west as you point out, Russia, France and Germany. It is also highly condescending your view that America "supports" these dictators and is therefore responsible and must await the chickens to come home to roost. You look upon these poeple through the prism of Rousseau's "noble savage". These dictators are responsible for their own actions. It cannot be laid at America's door all the time. Of course, then you retreat into obsfucations and moving targets: "look who is making the money". Non-sequitur?

• sirpeter | May 11, 2011, 11:48 AM EDT

  Windmaker. I'm not blaming the USA solely for everything.As a matter of fact Ireland and Europe and all the first world countries are just as guilty.Windmaker you hit the nail on the head when you said the main reason they are poor is because they refuse to liberalise their economies.But in order to do that with countries in the middle east you need careful economic management through appropriate regulation by governments. They have lunatics for leaders as you say and alot of them originally backed and supported by the West.(ie Saddam)As for women in all fairness the West wasn't exactly fair to women either.Fifty years ago women though not forbidden from working were expected to give up work when they married and believe it or not up to 1976 in the states it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife.she could not bring an action against him. Muslims are not united and Christians have been quite happy to watch other Christians be butchered as well.The West chooses who they will rescue.They didn't rescue 800,000 Tutsi people in the Rwandan Genocide.They walked away when the Tutsi people begged for help. Why? Because the West had nothing to protect in Rwanda. I'm not against America at all and I like Americans and I don't want to see any harm coming to Americans or American soldiers. But American involvement in the middle east is not good for the American people.World Hunger Education Service: 27% of Americans in the USA reported that they did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food (USDA 2010) Do those 810,000 people think it's worth been a target for the Osama Bin Laden's of the world? At the end of the day.There is no war but class war.Who is making the money? We all need to wake up and see what's really happening.

• Windmaker | May 11, 2011, 09:33 AM EDT

  MarkRichey is DISGUSTED. You must be terribly proud of yourself. You are so obviously morally superior to all of us vengeful, bloodthirsty lunatics. Never found guilty? Oh yes, thats where this war will be won. In the court room. Your post is little more than posturing and posing. What about his multiple confessions? They not enough for you? What side are you. Spare me a riposte along the lines of "on the side of justice and angels....."

• Windmaker | May 11, 2011, 09:26 AM EDT

  Bullocks- Do alarm bells not ring in your head when a writer, such as the article you reference below, decries all injustice as arising due to the interests of America and of course, the little Satan, Israel? Such a prejudiced, self serving, self pitying article you have referenced. All the well worn out tropes present. Israel has a hold on the US's foreign policy? Check. America's fault? Yes. Im not saying the US is perfect, no country is, nothing stands comparison with perfection. However, if you are asking me who I would prefer to see in power in Yemen, Saleh or A'Q, Il take Saleh any time. If you think Saleh is bad, wait until you see what comes after him. So no crocidile tears please. Ever heard of Realpolitik? If Saleh falls, and the south (including Aden) secedes, the big winner will be A'Q. How is the murder of innocents in Yemen in "my name"? Didnt realise I was that influential. No histrionics there Bullock? The US backed Saleh because he allowed American strikes on A'Q in Yemen, no other reason. It is not responsible for his actions. You see, the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt... The US didnt put Saleh there; in fact GW Bush Snr hated him and never forgave him for supporting Saddam in 1990. However, he serves a purpose. I wonder when AQ put in a Talibanesque tyrannical regime which stones "adulterers and homosexuals", will you shed tears.

• bullocks | May 11, 2011, 08:35 AM EDT

  Windmaker- extract from veterans today ref: Yemen’s American Sponsored Terrorist dated TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 "Saleh has refused to resign depending on the support of the United States due to his assistance in fighting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that has been accused of attacking U.S. interests including the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner by the “underwear” bomber." please read the full article it might open your eyes to what is being done in your name.I would be really interested to hear your reply.

• Windmaker | May 11, 2011, 06:51 AM EDT

  Sirpeter- The fact that muslim people are poor while they have so much oil is nothing to do with the USA. Blaming the USA for this is like blaming the USA for it not being Summer in mid february. The muslim people are poor because they have despotic leaders who refuse in the main to liberalise their economies preferring statist, government run economies. Many muslim countries dont even allow women work; if you exclude a good proportion of your human capital from the workforce, what can you expect of your economy. But I agree with you on one point. The USA should seek to ween itself off middle east oil as soon as possible. All it is doing is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Saudi Arabia is using petrodollars to spread its Wahhabist doctrine worldwide through fundmentalist mosques from Pakistan to the UK. But muslim people have to stop blaming America for all their ills. It is up to them to shake off their own shackles. It is so easy to blame others and this is the eternal victim trap that so many arabs are happy to exist in and which their governments happily foist upon them. You ask why do they hate you? You should ask, why do they not thank you. As I previously mentioned the arab states were perfectly happy to let their muslim brothers and sisters be butchered in Bosnia and Afghanistan. It was the USA who rode to their rescue. The USA has done much to support democratic activists from Iran to Syria over the last 20 years. Again, some recognition should be due

• Windmaker | May 11, 2011, 06:43 AM EDT

  Trealach- back beneath your rock- Shoo, shoo. Who lets you out? Your brillant wit should be kept safe.

• joeboy1 | May 11, 2011, 06:41 AM EDT

  what doesn,t she get he was a Mass Murderder

• falconflash | May 11, 2011, 05:48 AM EDT

  Well, the next question for Ms. Robinson would be would she object to him being put on trial in an American military court? No doubt he would be found guilty, and then executed via firing squad. Something tells me that Ms. Robinson would still not be happy. However, for Americans not to defend themselves and their loved ones would be the height of decadence. We're not there yet, Ms Robinson and hopefully never will be.

• sully1167 | May 11, 2011, 02:50 AM EDT

  What a bleeding heart!

• Collette2 | May 11, 2011, 02:45 AM EDT

  I seem to have deleted the end of the sentence of my comment I'm sorry. What I intended to include was, Gueseppe Lazzarotto was condemned for not responding to the commission as Ambassador to the Holy See, where as Mary Robinson, with her credentials including a Reid Professor of law, had no such restrictions during her time. Maybe it was due to her strong Catholic roots which rendered it impossible.

• MarkRichey | May 11, 2011, 02:16 AM EDT

  I feel a lot more DISGUSTED at this illegal and immoral action, than merely 'uncomfortable.' It will feed a cycle of violence in return, and I don't want to hear these same people whining about that when they approve of murder of an unarmed man never found guilty of any crime.

• grimchieftain | May 11, 2011, 12:50 AM EDT

  Oh, boo hoo! There were weapons in the room. Should the Seals have waited until he picked one up and started shooting? All those people on 9/11 weren't armed and that didn't stop him ordering their murder. Justice was done...cowboy justice, but justice nonetheless.

• dalrosson | May 10, 2011, 11:36 PM EDT

  This woman is out of her flippin mind, as many people as that man has murdered to say nothing of the thousands more he would have murdered given the chance, why should he not be disposed of as quickly as possible. that goes for the rest of them too. It is all well and good to say he "deserves a trial" what about what the people he murdered deserved.

• semperfidelis | May 10, 2011, 11:05 PM EDT

  Well he should have armed himself. Mary spent too much time at the U.N. apparently. However when you hang out with the likes of Jimmy Carter it's to be expected I suppose that she'd share his bleeding heart for mass murdrerers " feelings".

• sirpeter | May 10, 2011, 10:50 PM EDT

  The American media do a real good job on some of ye people.If ye only stopped for one moment and asked yourselves>>WHY? Then study what is happening in the middle east and find out the truth. Who is manipulating the Muslim leaders? Who put Saddam in power and plenty other despots in other countries? Why are the Muslim people so poor when they have so much oil? Why does the US have so many military bases around the world? Where does the oil money go? Why do they hate us? Why are we spending billions in the middle east and what are we protecting? It's all there on the net.

• irishpjk | May 10, 2011, 10:46 PM EDT

  Mary justice was done. I know many of you wish we had taken him alive, then you could keep complaining for years about how we interrogated him, where we should jail and try him. Guilty; of mass murder by his own addmission, and he was still trying to do it again. If he thought Ireland would serve his cause you would be on his list, he just felt you were not worth his time. To all you hate mongers out there don't take anymore of that dirty foreign aid money from the USA, then you might feel so bad.

• Trealach | May 10, 2011, 09:24 PM EDT

  @@ Windmaker - The truth is really hard to swallow - isn't it? Wake up, smell the coffee and get over it. I presume with a name like yours, it refers to the farts exuding from the lower regions your body, because your comments are all p**s and wind.

• mairdemalone | May 10, 2011, 09:18 PM EDT

  You are right, Mary! Osama bin Laden should have been captured and then brought to justice and then prosecuted. Sadly, America, the great land of Liberty and Justice was sold to the highest bidder. One only has to see the movie FAIR GAME to realise this, and see the devastation the effects Global Warming is having on those beautiful United States. The once mighty defender of Truth, because of corruption and greed has decayed. The rich and the beautiful think they can rise above the rest. They are too vain to realise the decay is eating away at their foundations too. You can hide Truth in the deepest hole, but eventually it will be found. Justice is bought, Truth is gagged, Integrity is deaf and shunned, Honour is hidden down in the depts of the Gulp, beneath the BP cesspool, in the corrupt halls of Washington, in the Federal Reserve, in the offices on Wall Street, in the hallow hearts of the Medical Schools, Law Schools, Entertainment and sadly in the hearts of the Education System, and last but not least, in the hearts of Parent who fail to be "parents". Amen!

• Trealach | May 10, 2011, 09:16 PM EDT

  @snakehips - By the Grace of God, I was saved the ignominy of being born in the US, a land which places no value on human life. Instead He bestowed on me, the Grace and good fortune where life is respected and guaranteed, freedom assured and loved by the world. I realise how difficult a concept this must be for you since you live in a sad opposite world. @ Windmaker - The truth is really hard to swallow - isn't? Wake up, smell the coffee and get over it.

• NARROWBACK | May 10, 2011, 09:04 PM EDT

  its getting harder and harder to say I'm proud to be Irish American with the likes of mary robinson making comments like that and a Catholic church in Dublin looking to dedicate a mass to osama. Thank God the parishoners put an end to it

• Pittsburghkid | May 10, 2011, 08:51 PM EDT

  How quickly we forget the video of Bin Laden praising the 9/11 terrorist. I remember him saying when the first tower was hit, that they were done, and the second tower was hit. Mrs. Robinson, you forget the fireman that rush into the towers to be killed. You forget about the widows, and orphans of 9/11. The Muslims are cold hearted killers of infidels. Infidels are you and me. Currently the Muslims want to build a victory mosque on ground zero.

• Collette2 | May 10, 2011, 07:47 PM EDT

  To begin with,what a lovely photo of Mary Robinson; secondly and more to the point, for me anyway, as former President of Ireland and United Nations Commisssioner, where was her public condemnation of the abuse of all the vulnerable 'un-armed or maybe dis-armed is a better word, of Irish Catholic children, it was certainly known and being discussed during her time. Religious and political correctness I suppose. In 2009 the Pro-Nuncio Gueseppe Lazarrotto

• Spalpeen | May 10, 2011, 06:52 PM EDT

  A sad gaggle of commentators.....Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, et al. Experts on how to handle a mass murderer, yet bereft of solutions on UBL and all of his ilk. Yawn

• irishwxman | May 10, 2011, 06:45 PM EDT

  @Bubba...too bad OBL wasn't too concerned with human rights. Now he's sleeping with the fishes.

• Bubbastudd | May 10, 2011, 06:18 PM EDT

  The words of Mary Robinson, an influential--not to say, towering--political figure, should be carefully considered. She is deeply concerned with human rights & the rule of law.

• irishwxman | May 10, 2011, 05:57 PM EDT

  @RosemaryKelly....outstanding point. Well said. Mary Robinson is a typical far left moonbat liberal. Idiots.

• Fastest | May 10, 2011, 05:40 PM EDT

  The Hon. Mary Robinson is brilliant. Instead of subjecting the peoples of North America to more murders of innocent people as well as the human bondage trades sure to follow, this brave young ex-president(I think she was only 12 when she was president) is willing to risk not only her life, but the lives of Irish people everywhere. Saint-hood awaits.

• citizen69 | May 10, 2011, 05:25 PM EDT

  @Ajreaper: I doubt they would have used cell phones in the compound as they are easier to listen into than landlines which defeats the purpose of not having a landline in the first place. This is why Bin Laden used his couriers. I agree with you on the possibility of a secret tunnel though. I'm just not convinced that people within the very top of the Pakistani government were hiding Bin Laden. I dread to think of the consequences if a foreign state invaded US air space to carry out an attack on US soil without permission. You can't have it both ways. You either respect international law or you dont.

• teadoir | May 10, 2011, 05:25 PM EDT

  She is an idiot that needs to go back to her pig farm in the bog. Agreeing with the Leader of the Anglican Church suits her....

• RosemaryKelly | May 10, 2011, 05:23 PM EDT

  All the people of 9/11 were unarmed too!!!!! WHAT a stupid comment.

• PatriciaMarya | May 10, 2011, 04:39 PM EDT

  Bin Laden was unarmed, but certainly not vulnerable - he was in his comfortable compound, certainly not in a cave as his many video's would have you believe and he had his many wives and minions to minister to his comfort and his protection. Contrast that with the innocents who were only going to work on the morning of 9slash11, 2001 and the group of retired seniors who were happily going to a special Retirement breakfast that same day at Windows on the World - they were also unarmed, but did Bin Laden worry about them? Enough. As someone who was injured and had to spend my own dime and my own time of close to 5 years to repair the entire dental top of my mouth due to the poisons that I inhaled while volunteering as a Red Cross partipant at a feeding kitchen near Ground Zero, I cannot tell you how relieved I am that this cruel hypocrite has finally been eliminated from the Earth.

• dan Breen | May 10, 2011, 04:27 PM EDT

  To bad BIN LADEN NEVER MET IRIS ROBINSON, MARY SHOULD BRING IRIS WITH HER ON HER SPEAKING TOUR.TH WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE. MARY STAY OUT OF AMERICA. ONE IRISH PERSON NOT WATED IN AMERICA.

• edmundburke | May 10, 2011, 03:52 PM EDT

  Mary's remarks put her right up there with Eamonn De Valera's condolences sent in early 1945 upon the "death" of Adolph Hitler. I'm not surprised. I know a former UN official who thinks Mary's one of the most stupid national leader's they ever met. More confirmation; strong democracies can still legally kill pirates at will, and OBL was no more than that.

• markjmills | May 10, 2011, 03:41 PM EDT

  Justice? Too many people confuse procedural justice, the mere process and formal rules, with substantive justice, in which the focus is on reaching the correct decision (note: 'critical legal studies' proponents, i.e., Marxists, have lately attempted to hijack and re-define the concept of 'substantive justice' to further their political ends - do not be misled by their word games). Is it "just" when, using all proper and due procedural process, an innocent is convicted? Obviously not - yet under the procedural justice view, justice has been served. Is there anyone (who is not clinically insane - hi, Trealach!) who doubts Osama's guilt for many unspeakable crimes? Substantive justice, actual justice, has been done, ridding the world of an inhuman monster. So Mary, go out and play with your crazy buds Carter and Mandela and Tutu, and leave sanity to the rest of us.

• bullocks | May 10, 2011, 03:27 PM EDT

  Madame Roland’s statement during the French Revolution prior to her death: “Liberty, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name.”

• bullocks | May 10, 2011, 03:22 PM EDT

  Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board that issued a report in September 2004 requested by Secretary Rumsfeld. The report states: “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.’

• bridiegirl | May 10, 2011, 03:19 PM EDT

  This is why she is the FORMER president

• Ms.Gail | May 10, 2011, 03:07 PM EDT

  Bin Laden was armed with hatred and minions to carry out his deadly immperitives. There were arms in the room and no reason to think he did not have arms hidden about his person. It is all well and good for the Momday morning quarterbacks to express opinions, but in the moment there is time only for action. Would it have been better for the SEALS to have been slaughtered? Bin Laden chose this destiny when he chose to slaughter the innocents as a statement of his superiority.

• charlie0491 | May 10, 2011, 02:45 PM EDT

  I think the world of Ms Robinson but I strongly disagree. The people in the world trade center were not armed. I greve for them, not their killer. As for blaminhe Irish people for the economic problems, i again disagree. The bankers and in Ireland and in the US got greedy and the were left unchecked by the Irish and US governments. Now the people are left to pay the price.

• sirpeter | May 10, 2011, 02:40 PM EDT

  Windmaker..I don't think anybody is saying the 9/11 attack was right or even questioning it's legitimacy. But it's alot more complex then that. The twin towers and the whole middle east is connected to the death of those innocent people.But I do wonder how many Americans really know what's going on in the middle east or weather they even care. While I am glad to live somewhere where I can speak my mind. I know that alot of Muslim leaders of oil rich countries are been manipulated by the West to the disadvantage of it's poverty stricken people. Those people should be the richest people in the world.But they are not.Windmaker follow the money and you will see who is behind it. Maybe the Muslims are sick and deluded and hate the West. Maybe they want to murder everybody in the West. But there is no getting away from two basic fact's 1/They are stinking in oil and 2/ The majority are in extreme poverty. To me something is not right about that. Poverty and been robbed while your children starve is going to make a people demented. I only try to put across another group of human beings point of view.I don't see any Muslims on this site.It's a pity,they might explain better. I'm always willing to listen.

• IrishDorothy7 | May 10, 2011, 02:37 PM EDT

  Thank God for Mary Robinson.

• Kilsally | May 10, 2011, 02:28 PM EDT

  Ha - was plenty of furour from the USA about Human Rights abuses and shoot to kill policies when the SAS shot IRA terrorists en route, armed with machine guns and bombs in Northern Ireland and in Gibraltar.

• Paradigm | May 10, 2011, 02:08 PM EDT

  While I've considerable respect for Rowan williams and Mary Robinson I find it puzzling, to say the least, that those who have virtually no knowledge of 'out-of-theatre' operations should tender such naive opinion on the shooting of bin Laden. The architect of thousands of deaths including air passengers and workers in the twin towers is not some ordinary or temporary miscreant but the epitomy of evil, and the concept of endangering the lives of our brave soldiers to extract this individual is without logic and lacks empathy with reality.

• PhlutiePhan | May 10, 2011, 01:55 PM EDT

  I "feel very uncomfortable" with Mary Robinson especially in light of her "hanging with" Nellie Mandela and Jimmie C. She wants to "ease tensions" with a country which was the aggressor in sinking a navy vessel with large loss of life. This is from a U.S. Navy vet and not one of the group who "dance naked holding hands around the mulberry bush".

• Ajreaper | May 10, 2011, 01:36 PM EDT

  Citizen69 ever heard of cell phones? Seems they found like 5 of them in the compound. How about a secret tunnel out? Could we be sure there was not one? Who in Pakistan could we 100% trust given Osama's percieved location? Hindsight is great but it hardly counts in operations like this. And Sirpeter do you question the women about why she was raped? My God you are completely clueless and not shy about proclaiming it to all those here.

• Windmaker | May 10, 2011, 01:31 PM EDT

  SirPeter- Would you not say that someone who questions the legitimacy of the 9/11 attack is not only besmirching the memory of the 3000 who died on that day but attacking America? I would. In terms of "All I see is Muslim haters", that straw man no longer washes. I am sick to death of people being labelled "rascists" or "muslim haters" so as to aver the debate on the true substance of ideas. It is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Open your eyes, see who the real "haters" are. Those are the islamofascists who cant reconcile themselves to the fact that the "infidel" west is so vastly superior to the way of Allah in so many ways. It is they who want to build a bridge back to the 7th century who hate, who see us as unworthy unbelievers. It was the USA who intervened to save muslims from being slaughtered in Bosnia. I saw no oil rich Muslim powers rallying to their muslim brothers then. And for that, the USA gets Mohammad Atta on 9/11? Some thanks. It is not "hatred" to see things as they are. I pity those not able to see straight due to the twin blinkers of political correctness and cultural diffidence. It is not us who hate our own women and see them as second class citizens, and make them unequal under law. You make the mistake of thinking rationally and accordingly transferring rationality to the likes of the suicide bomber- He must have a reason. No, he is deluded, brainwashed, sick and of course irrational. These people hate the USA as their own authoritaria governments need a fallguy to keep the spot light from shining on their own wrongs- these governments, who receive countless billions of dollars in aid from the USA are only too happy to have the USA play the role of fall guy and hence the safety valve.

• cailinrua | May 10, 2011, 01:29 PM EDT

  Ever since the killing of this hate-filled, evil man, I have been interested by the articles and comments I have seen here at IC, basically defending Bin Laden and chastising the US for killing him. This man, from out of nowhere, masterminded a plot that is STILL killing people, almost ten years after the act was committed. He killed innocent men, women and children (BTW) whose only crime was that they went to work or were on a flight that day. It has already cost us billions to try to recover, and now, Mrs. Robinson thinks that we should have captured, incarcerated and tried Bin Laden for his crimes? That's all we need - to have the murderer of 3000 people living on the American taxpayers' dime. The Navy Seals and President Obama acted swiftly and expediently and got the job done. As a Republican, all I can say is "Kudos to them for getting the job done!" When I read the comments here left by a lot of folks, I worry. I'm thankful that none of you were around when Hitler was running roughshod over Europe.

• sirpeter | May 10, 2011, 01:01 PM EDT

  @Windmaker..There isn't anyone attacking America on this site.Just some of us see a bigger picture and been critical of any move a government makes is a good thing.I certainly didn't like those towers falling knowing people were in them.But only a fool would not question their government as to why they were attacked. People don't kill themselves and others without reason.This is all we are saying. It seems to me people don't want to see the bigger picture. I just see Muslim haters and that ain't much good.Course I would prefer high profile Irish people to keep their mouth shut.We have enough to deal with in our own country.

• Phaenius | May 10, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT

  Whoops, I did not read that part concerning her trip to NORTH Korea, and of all things, traveling with a near candidate of the stupidest or dangerous president of America, Jimmy Carter himself. This explains a whole lot of things concerning her...and by the way MARY, we are NOT a democracy but a Republic...and our desires from the foundation of America is LIBERTY, not raw freedom, for LIBERTY is the freedom to do that which is RIGHT and for the true Christian (even voiced in the old Hebrew scripture) is that which is RIGHT in the eyes of God. And contrary to the thinking of those enamored at the Divine Right of Kings philosophy of ruler-ship, Romans 13 has the caveat in verse 3 which says "for rulers are not a terror to good works, BUT TO THE EVIL."

• Phaenius | May 10, 2011, 12:42 PM EDT

  I am Irish, though with my Cherokee blood, I am blooded also to America, what appears to be the other Irish homeland. What gets me frustrated is that Ireland from time to time, but recently more time than usually, gets off on the wrong side of most every issue. Now Mary (and my mother's name is Mary) Robinson has made her opinion known and throws another bad egg onto Irish reputation, and with Obama as OUR president I am opting to give Ireland mercy. She is wrong. America was not at war with the religion of Osama Bin Laden, but he decided to make himself in a state of war with America. Doing so, according to the Second Treatise of government by the more correct than usual Englishman John Locke, who was also the mentor of our American founders, says that when you place yourself in a state of war with someone, you also expose yourself to danger of that fate which you afflict on others. He murdered unmercifully, and thus placed himself outside of civilization, and as John Locke puts it, as a murderous lion that we are allowed to kill before he kills us as is the nature of all beasts of predation. A state of war means we are NOT in a state of nature nor civilization. There are means of trying to come outside that state such as surrender that does not require shoot on sight, but he never endeavored to enter such activity, and quarter is not necessarily automatic considered in a state of war. And it is the likes of Osama who has made it a natural means of warfare to blow oneself up with suicide vests and IEDs and booby traps, and for us to shoot him on sight before he releases any of these treacherous devices is as effective as just bombing him...and risking collateral damage...as they themselves are first to accuse us of doing. Mary is just wrong and it is embarrassing that she has any claim on being Irish, but to fault the Irish people at every word of their leaders is a bit difficult for one whose own leader is named Obama.

• rfallonrn | May 10, 2011, 12:40 PM EDT

  Did you see what happened here? Did you see the innocents jumping to their death from the World Trade Center? Did you work hours and days on end waiting in the ER for survivors that never came? Did you try to comfort a firefighter,cop, ems or co-workers who knew their best friend died a horrible death. The innocents were unarmed Mary do you feel comfortable with that? Shame on you Mary Robinson! God Bless President Obama and The Navy Seals Team 6

• haikued2 | May 10, 2011, 12:33 PM EDT

  Windmaker: Thank you for your clarity. Bravo!

• deburca | May 10, 2011, 12:31 PM EDT

  I wonder if Ms. Robinson is familiar with the phrase "Monday morning quarterbacking. Would she feel better if they had just bombed the compound and lost the massive cache of intelligence or would she have felt better if the Navy Seals had hesitated and perhaps been blown up by Bin Laden or someone else having a bomb strapped to them that went unseen?

• haikued2 | May 10, 2011, 12:31 PM EDT

  So were the many, many people that Jihadist crazy man had killed in the name of "god". What a silly comment for her to make.. Ireland needs leaders like that: treat monsters like nice little kids from the neighborhood accused of holding up a 7-11. Did she cry when Hitler killed himself..OH NO, he was armed;)

• Whitepark | May 10, 2011, 12:24 PM EDT

  My suggestion to Mary Robinson is to ease up on the Poteen and wake up to the real World and stop listening to the Fairies.

• Windmaker | May 10, 2011, 12:23 PM EDT

  Oh Trealach- it would be a joy to be as simple and feeble minded as you. You are the worst type of apologist. I can discern from your comment that we have a 9/11 truther in our midst. Silly silly child. With a name like yours, I could of course be wrong and apologies for my generalisation, but I can only imagine you as an an IRA fellow traveller. The US know nothing about democracy? And who does Trealach but a venerable international law expert such as yourself? And of course, Asif Ali Zardari would never have given permission for the raid would he? Seeing your anti-american ramblings also makes me imagine you see democracy as something different. Perhaps the "peoples" democracies of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela might be more to your liking. How courageous you "are attacking "Amerika". Back under your rock you feeble minded troll...

• sirpeter | May 10, 2011, 12:22 PM EDT

  @boydshield..I think you give Bin Laden to much credit as been some magical mastermind and he alone is the only one who can mastermind these kills. I think you forget in Ireland we have had many masterminds who know how to kill.The Irish government and the British government with all their informers and spies plus all their hard hitting SAS teams have failed miserably to break these people.This was in a country the size of a postage stamp. He is already a martyr now that he is dead and you know that. Weather moderate Muslims knew this was coming or not is irrelevant.These moderate Muslims undermine the extremist's more then anything the American government can do. The reality is that it is now taking extremely high security to protect the United States.They will find a way through that security and get better at it with every move.This is what they are naturally expert at.I would hardly class the DEVGRU as heroes.They were given orders to surprise attack a sh*thole and they did it. They expect to die,there is no defense against that mentally.They don't play at conventional warfare.They watch and wait their chance and it always comes.With a billion Muslims most living in poverty and nothing to lose the United States is surely playing with the beast.

• citizen69 | May 10, 2011, 12:18 PM EDT

  @mayoman: I agree that there must have been SOME within the pakistan administration who knew of Bin Laden's location but i'm sure there are more who wanted him dead. Remember, thousands of Pakistani troops died fighting Al-Quaeda and Bin Laden's men killed way more Pakistanis & Afghans than Americans. Five of the top ten wanted Al Quaeda suspects were arrested & handed over by the Pakistanis. The US should have told a select few of the Pakistani government a short time before the raid. The compound had no phone or internet connections and it's been said the US had men on the ground in Surveillance who could have alerted about any attempt to warn those in the compound.

• Ajreaper | May 10, 2011, 12:08 PM EDT

  Why would the U.S. constitution apply to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, a legal resident or visitor to the U.S. and is not on U.S. soil? Live by the sword and die by the sword end of discussion. The U.S. could easily have bombed the compound as opposed to risking American lives to be sure who they wanted was who they got. As far as informing Pakistan- they'll get over it a billion times over and truth be told most of the complaining is posturing by the government to pacify those who just want reasons to complain about anything the U.S. does. And given the location I am sure there was more then some thought that he was being protected and supported by high level people in either the government, the military or their intelligence services- telling them in advance would have been stupid given that possibility.

• snakehips | May 10, 2011, 12:08 PM EDT

  Trealach, I feel your pain and jealousy if you are not American, only some have been chosen. Sorry,

• GeorgeDillon | May 10, 2011, 12:06 PM EDT

  Correction: In the interests of accuracy and in fairness to the Dalai Lama, he said he was happy with the killing of Osama. My typo, I guess I'm not the first one to get those consonants mixed up. How come this site doesn't allow posters to correct typos?

• Trealach | May 10, 2011, 12:02 PM EDT

  Bin Laden has killed far less innocent people than Americans have killed in foreign countries - long before Bin Laden was even known. President Robinson, thinks like any civil-minded person, and is perfectly correct in her assessment. The problem is that the dick-headed US are armed to the teeth and know absolutely NOTHING about democracy. The incursion into a country which violates its Sovereignty IS an ACT of TERRORISM, and a uniform makes no difference. The fact that the Seals couldn't arrest Bin Laden shows how amateur a group they are. Of course, had they arrested him, perhaps we might have found out the TRUTH behind 9/11, and that in itself would have shown the depths of depravity to which the US has sunk. You live by the gun and the bomb, expect to be shot or blown up - the choice is yours!

• irishbob | May 10, 2011, 11:58 AM EDT

  Pardon me, but did, or did not, Osama Bin Laden murder over 3,000 UNARMED civilians? I am sorry Ms. Robinson feels uneasy about killing someone like that, but that is war; which is something else Ms. Robinson has forgotten? We are in a war that Bin Laden started, and in war you do not set out to arrest someone, you set out to kill him. Ms. Robinson thinks like Obama and the rest of the idiots surrounding him. They believe we need to arrest and place these SOBs before a civilian trial. Problem is they are not civilians. They are combatants. OBL set out, not in 2001, but in 1996 to kill every American. He tried blowing up the WTC before, but failed. It was President Bush who set things in motion to kill OBL. Obama might have sent the SEALS in, but they carried out Bush’s orders. They did the right thing by killing him. If he had been brought back to the USA, Obama would have put him on trial, and a good attorney would have gotten him off. Look at the guy Obama put on trial in New York. He had over 100 charges against him and his attorney had all but one tossed out. Another thing Ms. Robinson has forgotten is that many of those 3,000 people killed were Irish-Americans. Unarmed Irish-Americans. What would she say if they had been killed in Dublin? She and Jimmy Carter are alike, stupid as hell.

• snakehips | May 10, 2011, 11:58 AM EDT

  Mary, Mary Mary, How unsophisticated you are about the ways of the world...and Archbishop... your grace... Why don't you get a real job like the 3000 people who met with the panic and pain of a horrble death on September 11th.Not to mention the other people Bin Laden intended to kill in the future. War is hell my friends.

• mayoman | May 10, 2011, 11:56 AM EDT

  The reason Pakistan was not informed of the operation is simply because Pakistan cannot be trusted. Does anyone really believe that bin-Laden was living in a huge, conspicuous compound near Pakistani troops, and that the Pakistanis had no idea whatsoever that he was there? It stretches credulity to the very breaking point. No, the Navy Seals are alive, and bin-Laden is dead because no one wisely told the Pakistanis, who would have tipped off their "unknown" neighbor in a heartbeat.

• thomkatt1 | May 10, 2011, 11:50 AM EDT

  Do you honestly think he would have shown anyone any mercy? He probably would have videotaped them being beheaded. He was a boil on the face of the world and his demise was fitting!

• antoman | May 10, 2011, 11:50 AM EDT

  Don't lambast us Irish for the opinionated and self serving words of this woman.When push comes to shove we(the people) have America's back.

• derrymarch | May 10, 2011, 11:41 AM EDT

  Mary cannot be serious! The U.S.A. has once again rid the world of a dreadful menace. Thank you America. derry

• citizen69 | May 10, 2011, 11:39 AM EDT

  I have no problem with Bin Laden being shot while unarmed. He had previously admitted his part in 9/11. There wasn't a lot of time for decision making for the guys involved. It was a dawn raid in an enemy compound, everything happens so fast. There were probably smoke bombs & flash-bangs. Any move apart from throwing your arms in the air to surrender could be considered a threat. There are no second chances in these situations. My only worry about this operation is that the Pakistanis were not informed at any level on an assault deep within their own territory. That is a dangerous tactic to play. Pakistan is not the enemy here.

• Chiefjustice | May 10, 2011, 11:38 AM EDT

  ???? What about the killing of 3,000 unarmed men women and children. Ireland, Mind your own business. We are doing just fine.

• ancavker | May 10, 2011, 11:35 AM EDT

  Get over your bad self Mary.

• suzandpej | May 10, 2011, 11:34 AM EDT

  So much for her opinion. She is WAY off base. My ancestors all came from Ireland. I don't think any missles were on the ground when he butchered so many people at the Twin Towers. He didn't give us a chance to fight back. No warning, no weapons, nothing. Just like we gave him. Even the Bible says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I hold a special place in my heart for Ireland, as so many Americans do. Maybe she should meet some of the children, wives, husbands, brothers, etc. of the people killed on 9/11. This angers me. She'd feel a lot more uneasy if it had been her country, I suspect.

• antoman | May 10, 2011, 11:33 AM EDT

  President Mary McAleese should reply to her with the words "meet me at the back of the internet".

• Yankee724 | May 10, 2011, 11:32 AM EDT

  A good thing Ms. Robinson is the EX-President with comments like this! Bin Laden was in reach of an AK-47 AND a pistol when he was shot. Maybe our SEALS should have played Marquis of Queensbury Rules!? This TERRORIST killed thousands of innocent people with plans to kill more. One more reason to not like Irish women (like this one)...they are idiots! His attack wasn't in YOUR country,was it?!God bless the U.S. Navy! ---All American Boy

• greensod | May 10, 2011, 11:28 AM EDT

  Inlight of all the problems in Ireland,espically 1000 people per week leaving the country so they can make a living in other countries of the world,it would be very prudent for Mary Robinson to mind her own business and get active in helping Ireland get out from under the claws of the EU.America should not be judged from the gallary of a nation who can not even provide jobs or health care for its citizens.She needs to visit the hundreds of people laying on trollies in hospitals all over Ireland who can net get to see a doctor. How about it Mary,look in your own house.Americans business is for Americans and they seem to be doing fine.

• nicgearailt | May 10, 2011, 11:19 AM EDT

  I am really distressed that Ms Robinson is somewhat discomfortedabout this..she obviously has not lost family to terrorists...Bin Laden had no designs on her ... this was an American response, by smart and brave men, to take out this coward, who killed 3000 innocents..mothers fathers, daughters and sons...and thought nothing of it ...just laughed as he watched the towers fall. Let no one doubt..he was evil through and through...was already planning further atrocities in the USA. these opinions get Mary in the press...am sure that's good for her psyche...will probably get her a fine stipend as a consequence, when she is invited by AL Qaeda to speak at one of their gatherings...this is a outright attempt at getting attention..besides she is entitled to her opinion..do not want her in my foxhole..

• cillowen | May 10, 2011, 10:58 AM EDT

  she probably fell on 'er 'ead poor changed mary.

• boydshield | May 10, 2011, 10:52 AM EDT

  And if he masterminded another kill, let's say in Dublin, would those of you that feel justice was not served feel different? I think yes, because you'd have your people to answer to. Sir Peter, leave him alone, ridiculous. The DEVGRU are heroes. Would bringing bin Laden to trial, where he would be convicted and executed, thereby turning him into a martyr been the best thing? No. The moderate Muslims knew this was coming. Mary Robinson, you would have preferred? Laughable. As a US High Commissioner, why didn't you and others do anything?

• phinsman | May 10, 2011, 10:51 AM EDT

  I agree with Mary Robinson... Osama bin Laden should have been taken to trial, not killed. Where is the justice in killing someone who was unarmed?

• MMLeprechaun | May 10, 2011, 10:49 AM EDT

  Ms. Robinson...did the occupants of the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the plane in PA have ANY chance to defend themselves...no,they were killed with no provocation. I don't like killing an unarmed individual but this man did not act human, had no conscience and cared only for that in which he believed. Sorry, I don't share your thoughts and feelings because (a) he could never have been brought out alive; some group in Pakistan was shielding his presence there, that's obvious; (2) it would have cost the USA billions more to prosecute if our Muslim devotee (that's Prez to you)would have even allowed it; (3) the Muslim outrage in this Country would have cost more lives. Face facts...instant death was his just reward..live by the sword, die by the sword.

• sirpeter | May 10, 2011, 10:43 AM EDT

  @Windmaker..Quote"Bin Laden wasnt in America and therefore deserved no constitutional protections.Unquote. If that's what you believe and if it's what everyone believes here. Then ye all have the right to believe that.BUT I for one and I guess along with Mary Robinson and the Archbishop of Canterbury don't feel comfortable in the way this went down. I don't give a flying fu*k that he is dead. But it was important that justice was seen to be done so that the moderate Muslims can say to their people that justice was done.This has not been the case.There is no REAL justice without a trial.In my opinion the best outcome was to either capture him alive or leave him alone. No one here has convinced me otherwise. So my comment stands.

• LAbiddy | May 10, 2011, 10:43 AM EDT

  Sorry, but the Navy Seals are heroes. If you saw Obama on 60 Minutes, it was pitch black when they went in without any concrete info on booby traps, etc. They did what they had to do. And seriously, would bringing bin Laden to trial, having him convicted and executed, turning him into a martyr for his cause really have been the best thing? This way, he was eliminated. Given a thoughtful and proper Islamic burial which is more than he gave to thousands of others. My cousin's body was never recovered, most likely burnt to ash and blown on the wind. So you tell me who was more humane? Deeply disappointed in Mrs Robinson's position.

• JackofIraq | May 10, 2011, 10:39 AM EDT

  The people that died by his planning and carried out by his Fanatics, had no warning, no weapons with which to defend them selves and were innocent of any crimes against bin Laden, or Islam. I too would have liked to seen him captured and pubicly hung for his crimes against humanity. BUT he was afforded the same rights he gave his many victims. I have tried to to see her point of view, but can't get my head, up my arse far enough!

• Murphyoo | May 10, 2011, 10:36 AM EDT

  I think Bin Laden should've been arrested - but for Mary Robinson to get on her high horse is laughable. At a Human Rights Conference last year entitled Access to Justice:for some or for all, chaired by barrister Tourlough O'Donnell - I asked Mary "as a human rights champion - why will neither the IHRC or the NIHRC investigate the why Belfast Dockers were ordered to unload Asbestos without protection"? I fully expected Mary to be outraged, however, she looked away and took a great interest in the large doors at the back of the hall. When it became apparent that Mary wasn't going to answer Turlough O'Donnell called for the next speaker and indicated that the mike be taken from me. As a young lady was pulling the mike away I shouted to Turlough O'Donnell "will you give me a barrister to fight my case"? He replied "it doesn't work like that you have to go through one of the NGO's that the Bar Council work with". I contacted Flac and they declined. However, the main gist of my argument is: Mary Robinson is more concerned with the life of Bin Laden than she is with the Belfast Dockers. Hypocrisy or what...? Hugh Murphy

• pugsmom | May 10, 2011, 10:29 AM EDT

  @AliciaL......I was going to point out the same thing to Mrs. Robinson. "Should I be smashed to death on the ground hundreds of feet below, or be cooked alive in this office? Hmm." Such a choice bin Laden and his "warriors" gave thousands of innocents. I simply canNOT understand why the likes of Mrs. Robinson and HER groupies want the USA to feel guilty about the course taken to rid the world of a filthy cockroach! If he had managed to perpetrate another grand atrocity, then the rest of the world would be screaming, "Why didn't YOU (USA) do something? Why couldn't YOU (USA) protect US?" Thank you US Navy SEALS....Bless you, and just say to detractors like Mrs. Robinson: Just SHUT the hell UP!"

• mcdolan | May 10, 2011, 10:25 AM EDT

  I too would have preferred he came out armed and fighting. But he didn't, he was eliminated, and that's that. Justice served.

• feliciamaisey | May 10, 2011, 10:18 AM EDT

  I don't think she ever said she wasn't relieved that he was removed from the earth, but rather she expressed discomfort with the fact that he was not brought to trial. Saddam Hussein was brought to trial before being hanged, and I think that was more in line with her thinking. While no-one can dispute the vile actions of the man, there will always be the question of whether or not he could have been brought to trial and thetruth is, I do not think he would have ever been given the opportunity to be brought to a trial, because people wanted to see him ended by whatever means necessary, there is no true court of his peers (no one vile enough and no-one who has not heard of his name/actions), and no-one wants to give opportunity to a known terrorist. It is over now, no matter what Mary Robinson or the Dali Lama or any of us think--his life is over and now it is time to move forward with an even more cautious approach.

• Cmullaney | May 10, 2011, 10:18 AM EDT

  I admire Pres. Robinson mightily but she's way off base here.

• antoman | May 10, 2011, 10:10 AM EDT

  When the enemy outnumber you and hit you hard shouting "Allah Akbar!!" You're cry should be "NO SURRENDER!!" God bless President Obama and the Navy Seal Team.They done the world a great service.

• AliciaL. | May 10, 2011, 10:08 AM EDT

  Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson, a nation does not turn its lonely eyes to you! Mrs. Robinson is a fool. It is bad enough that she presided over the Jew-bashing Durban conference but now she opines on the death of Bin Laden. I think she needs to look at the photos of the people who jumped from the World Trade Center. Can she imagine what their minutes as they made the decision to jump, rather than be burnt alive, must have been like? Does she even care?

• Sheilah | May 10, 2011, 10:05 AM EDT

  How Naive. Thank God Obama has a pair and rid the world of this devil incarnate monster.

• MikeRock | May 10, 2011, 09:59 AM EDT

  Hey Mrs. Robinson, Stay in Ireland and don't set foot in New York City again. You're NOT welcome. Where were you on 9/11 when over 3,000 innocent people were murdered? Bin Laden was brought to justice.

• IAPRINCESS | May 10, 2011, 09:59 AM EDT

  Is she for real??? BinLaden has plenty of guns in the room. He just did not have one near enough or he would have returned fire. He was vicious.

• sarhuey212 | May 10, 2011, 09:57 AM EDT

  We are talking about a man who made it clear to the world he was behind the 9/11 attack and many others. The blood of many an innocent life was on his hands. Does this dumb woman think that a multi-million dollar trial was really required to have the same end result? With this raid we should Al Qaeda that you can run, but you can't hide! To these people we are all infidels, we either become Muslim or we die!!! Wake up and smell the roses!!!

• borefield | May 10, 2011, 09:55 AM EDT

  Ms. Robinson, Give me a break. Were the innocent people that were working in the World Trade Center ARMED?, were the people in the planes that flew into them armed, the people at the Pentagon, were they armed or pre warned. She may be a well educated woman but she lacks common sense. I arrived in London in 2005, were the people in the London Tubes armed. With all due respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury he should take care of Church issues and leave the Hard Work to the Navy Seals. What a proud day for the USA and to be American. No matter which way we do it or how, there will be nonsense to deal with from people with small selfserving minds. If Robinson lost a family member would she have given him a gun to protect himself. Get a life woman!

• McNamara31 | May 10, 2011, 09:55 AM EDT

  There were 3000 unarmed mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and fire and police, who merely went to work that day and died. Since then countless numbers of first responders have succumber to illness and death because of Bin Laden's actions. A generation of New York children grew up "in fear" thinking when was it going to happen again? It's easy to sit in your comfortable place, and judge someone else who had to make this decision with "the victims" in mind.

• RosedeJager | May 10, 2011, 09:55 AM EDT

  I'm with Kate on this one. Enough of the bleeding hearts. This man didnt hold up the local hardware store - he was responsible for the killing of three thousand UNARMED civilian people and devastating the lives of their families -why hand him over to a court of justice and drag it out for endless years -causing even more distress to those people whose loved ones were killed?

• RosedeJager | May 10, 2011, 09:54 AM EDT

  I've always admired Mary Robinson and still do - and in a perfect world with perfect people administering perfect justice I would agree with her on this point. But then, of course, in a perfect world there wouldn't be a Bin Laden. A recent poll says that Americans, by a large majority, did not want Bin Laden taken alive. I suspect that most of the world agrees. This is not perfect justice but it is perfectly understandable.

• frederic | May 10, 2011, 09:51 AM EDT

  Mary go back to Ballina where you might learn from your neighbours what should be done to people who kill innocent people.An Eye for an Eye.

• kithara | May 10, 2011, 09:50 AM EDT

  How did the forces coming in know whether or not Bin Laden was ready to blow himself up and everyone else. I'm sure he wasn't putting tea on.

• ellajane1 | May 10, 2011, 09:49 AM EDT

  He was "brought to justice:, just sooner than later.

• manhattan | May 10, 2011, 09:49 AM EDT

  Look at who she travels with, Carter{America's worse President} all lefty's and goes to North Korea? Say no more, her and her fellow travelers are living in la la land. She has no business telling our country how we should have handled that mass murderer.

• colkelley | May 10, 2011, 09:46 AM EDT

  And we are supposed to care about her "feelings?"

• Windmaker | May 10, 2011, 09:42 AM EDT

  Sir Peter, you say that "Democracy in a country comes with rules and everyone has to obey those rules". It might be worth noting that Bin Laden wasnt in America and therefore deserved no constitutional protections. Furthermore, terroists dont qualify for those protections afforded by the Geneva Convention. Bin Laden was hardly a person executed without being given "a chance to speak". To my mind, he spoke plenty on those video diaries and gloated about his actions. Your moral obsfucation and pious lecturing is quite troubling. Lets not remember that this is the same Mary Robinson that declared Cuba the only real democracy on earth and presided over the conference that was essentially a verbal pogrom against Israel in Durban - (i.e. the Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.) Her biases are well known and her views shouldnt be taken seriously. Anyone who equivocates between South Korea and North Korea as she has done in the past has no place moralising about the actions of the US in taking out the disgustinly perverted Bin Laden

• eirefest2 | May 10, 2011, 09:42 AM EDT

  If you are unsure if your enemy is armed, it is OK to shoot first and ask questions later! The SEALS followed orders and acted properly.

• yankeegal03 | May 10, 2011, 09:41 AM EDT

  Ms. Robinson needs a reality check.... as a retired NYPD Detective who did search/ rescue/recovery for months at the World Trade Center and is permanantly disabled from the 9/11 attacks, I speak from experience of What that animal is capable of. The Navy Seals had to take him down immediatly because the place was booby trapped and their lives were in jeopardy if he made any movement he could have set off a device that blew up the entire compound. Ms. Robinson needs to stay behind her desk pushing paperwork and leave the armed forces to do their job. She has NO CLUE OF REALITY !!

• phyduchak | May 10, 2011, 09:33 AM EDT

  I work a half a mile from the World Trade Center. Those peopele were unarmed when the planes hit. Give me a break. What would happen if the same thing happened in Dublin? Mary, wake up!

• antoman | May 10, 2011, 09:20 AM EDT

  The Dalai Lama must have been drunk.Obama is very much alive.Although it is easy to confuse the names.Osama knew he was going to be slayed.The Americans merely facilitated him.Is there any way the Seal Team can be reimbursed for the cost of the rounds fired?I presume they were parabellum rounds..nine millimetre?Cheap enough I imagine.Who do I make the cheque out to?

• GeorgeDillon | May 10, 2011, 09:02 AM EDT

  The latest I heard is that the Dalai Lama expressed satisfaction with the killing of Obama. Regardless of how you feel about the killing, and I don't have any strong opinions either way, it's typical of the hypocrisy of this fraudulent fleabag that the great "apostle of peace" should chime in to support a violent act.

• LoyalCitizen | May 10, 2011, 08:54 AM EDT

  Its OK for Mary Robinson to sign into Irish Law opinions, which is crimes against humanity because opinions in law deny people protection by law. Its OK to keep the Irish in servitude by financing pretentious American Corporations. Its OK to steal from Social Welfare Recipients and leave them to starve to hide Irish Politicians economic mistakes, but its not OK for Obama to shoot a suspected terrorist. Maybe she should give back her American Presidential medal of freedom that she earned by turning traitor on the Irish.

• seamusmoore | May 10, 2011, 08:34 AM EDT

  Bad luck to you Mrs Robinson, America loathes you more than you know, woe, woe, woe What's that you say mrs Robinson, boo who your bearded English hubby is a fat tub of goo.

• antoman | May 10, 2011, 08:24 AM EDT

  I agree with Kate.

• sirpeter | May 10, 2011, 08:15 AM EDT

  Kate..I'm not trying to be a smartass.But you are to focused on what he did and the plane crashes. All those people are dead and that can't be changed.Revenge should not come at any price.Democracy in a country comes with rules and everyone has to obey those rules. Fair justice HAS to be seen to be done, it's a law put there to protect YOU and YOU and YOU.An execution without giving a person a chance to speak undermines YOUR protection.

• CLUIDEMAN | May 10, 2011, 08:14 AM EDT

  Mary, Mary,quite contrary.

• kateomprint | May 10, 2011, 07:48 AM EDT

  What about the people Mary that he killed in those plane crashes were they armed and able to protect themselves. i am getting so tired of bleeding hearts like her defending somebody like Bin Laden.