What do Michael Moore, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and United Nations human rights officials have in common? They are upset over the latest reports that the United States shot Osama Bin Laden to death because the mass murderer, though stained with the blood of thousands of slain innocent Americans, was reportedly unarmed when justice was finally served.
Moore and his co-loonies have reinforced their well-deserved reputations for left-wing looniness by questioning the “legality” of Osama Bin Laden’s descent to Hell, courtesy of our Navy Seals. These bubbleheads, along with other hair-splitting Monday morning quarterbacks complaining that the killing of bin Laden may have violated international law, are completely unhinged from the real world.
Let’s start with Michael Moore, the multi-millionaire film writer and conspiracy theorist who thinks that “capitalism is a sin” while rolling in big bucks from his lie-filled film Fahrenheit 9/11.
With confidence that, in his words uttered thirteen months after al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on our homeland, “there is no terrorist threat in this country,” Moore now feels sorry for what happened to Bin Laden. He told CNN:
They killed him not because there was a fire fight or something going on. They went there with the intention to kill him. That’s an execution or an assassination, whatever you want to call it.
Moore lamented that, in killing Bin Laden, America
lost something of [its] soul
The only thing we lost is an evil, soulless killer. We don’t need the kind of “soul” that Michael Moore is pitching, especially when Moore compared the insurgents in Iraq, who included al Qaeda terrorists aiming to kill our soldiers, to the Minutemen of the American Revolution. And Moore once described the United States, which was fighting the terrorists, as
a nation that was founded on genocide and then built on the backs of slaves
I suppose that if Moore had his way, and could have fit into one of the Navy Seals’ helicopters without bringing it down, he would have enjoyed personally meeting Bin Laden and perhaps would have offered him a leading role as the hero in a Fahrenheit 9/11 sequel.
Meanwhile, across the pond in Merry England, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rev. Rowan Williams, the spiritual head of the Church of England and of the 80-million strong worldwide Anglican Communion, has criticized the United States for shooting dead the reportedly unarmed Osama bin Laden:
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
The circumstances of Bin Laden’s demise left the Archbishop of Canterbury “uncomfortable.” Poor thing. But before you feel too sorry for the Archbishop’s discomfort, don’t forget that this is the same Archbishop who, back in 2008, said that the United Kingdom will eventually have to get comfortable incorporating Islamic sharia law into the English legal system in order to help facilitate social cohesion.
At least the Archbishop of Canterbury should be comfortable with the fact that the Obama administration tried to follow sharia law by conducting a Muslim religious ceremony within 24 hours of Bin Laden’s death, before disposing of his cleansed body.
Finally, there are the transnationalists at the United Nations who want to usurp U.S. sovereignty by trying to get the final say over whether member states of the UN, including the United States, are conforming with international law.
In a statement released in Geneva, the UN’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, said the U.S.
should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards…the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment
UN human rights chief Navi Pillay also put out a statement requesting more details on what went down at Bin Laden’s lair:
The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law.
Unfortunately, after more than ten years of trying to even define what constitutes “terrorism,” the United Nations has come up empty. It’s kind of hard for any UN agency to determine whether a “counter-terrorism act” conforms with international law when the UN cannot even formulate a consensus on what “terrorism” even means.
More importantly, it’s none of the UN’s business how the United States chooses to defend itself against an organization and its leader who declared war on the United States, have continued to plot acts of terrorism against American civilians and have not followed the most elementary rules of law.
The Navy Seal commandos who located Bin Laden had only seconds during their time sensitive mission to make a judgment on whether bin Laden posed any possible danger. They had just encountered some gunfire from Bin Laden’s courier. The commandos reportedly also spotted two guns, one of which was an AK-47 assault rifle, in the room where they encountered Bin Laden. Obviously, they couldn’t pat him down without running a risk of harm and lost time. With their own lives and the success of the mission on the line, the commandos made the only logical call under the circumstances.
Besides, the only valid reason to try and take Bin Laden alive in the face of such risks would have been to extract more information from him via the same enhanced interrogation techniques that helped provide the clues leading to Bin Laden’s door in the first place. But since the Obama administration doesn’t believe in enhanced interrogations and has ended them, Bin Laden served no useful purpose remaining on this earth.
Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam