Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Bin Laden’s killing a ‘perversion of justice’

05 May 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/04/3207266.htm

4 May 2011

High-profile Australian QC and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson says the killing of Osama bin Laden is a perversion of justice that has effectively given the terrorist mastermind what he craved.

In the days since bin Laden's death, the US has been forced to backtrack and clarify details of the killing, with a picture now emerging of a targeted assassination.

This morning, White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed bin Laden was unarmed when US commandos raided his compound in Pakistan and shot him above his left eye, reportedly blowing away a section of his skull.

Mr Robertson has told ABC News Breakfast bin Laden should have been brought to trial and his death has made him look like a martyr.

"The way to demystify this man is not to kill him and have the iconic picture of his body," he said.

"The way to demystify him, rather than to these soulful pictures of the tall man on the mountain, is to put him on trial, to see him as a hateful and hate-filled old man screaming from the dock or lying in the witness box.

"That way the true inhumanity of the man is exposed."

Mr Robertson says US president Barack Obama has been sloppy with his use of the word "justice" and questions need to be answered about whether there was an explicit order to kill bin Laden.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," he said.

"This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination."

Mr Robertson says it is an irony that the US has given bin Laden what he craved.

"The last thing he wanted was to be put on trial, to be convicted and to end his life in a prison farm in upstate New York," he said.

"What he wanted was exactly what he got - to be shot in mid-jihad and get a fast track to paradise and the Americans have given him that.

"It's an irony that it's a win-win situation for both Osama and Obama. The latter gets re-elected as president and the former gets his fast track to paradise."

The US is still debating whether to release what it says are "gruesome" photos of bin Laden's corpse.

The White House also has pictures of bin Laden's burial at sea, which it says adhered to Muslim traditions.

But Mr Robertson says there will be consequences of releasing any of the photos.

"The method of disposing his body at night without an autopsy is also questionable," he said.

"They've got a photograph but they're not releasing that for fear that it'll become iconic, rather like the picture of Che Guevara on the slab.

"But if governments kill people, that's one of the consequences."

Mr Robertson says there now needs to be an inquiry into the death.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

fenton, i didnt say i didnt want to engage in rational debate, i said i wasnt interested in engaging with an obviously mendacious shill. i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive, and as far as failure to prove anything goes, ignoring evidence does not mean evidence has not been provided, nor proof been established.

you have certainly not proven by any stretch of the imagination, that chemtrails are imaginary, and the concern of thousands of credible experts worldwide is without justification.

may i suggest if you can not prove what you are asserting, that you also take a hearty sip yourself. have a shitty day.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 15:33:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

The onus of proof is on those promoting geoengineering (David Keith, etc.Ken Caldera) to prove that what they say about the spraying, i.e. that it is a proposal, not a global reality, is true. That follows from the precautionary principle.

By W, Hall on 2014 10 31 - 15:10:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

As admin of this site I feel I need to step in here. Andrew, if you do not not want to engage in discussion and debate that’s fine, however you have absolutely no right to tell anybody to “STFU”.

I have provided a comment section to encourage free discussion and debate. Your dictatorial and abusive tone merely demonstrates your failure to prove anything.

Since you don’t want to engage in rational debate may I suggest that you refrain from posting here?

Have a nice day!

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 14:52:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

@ lumpen josh
what part of “I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, ” is too hard for you to understand?
I do not have to justify anything to you, i dont have to point you to anything, i dont have to engage you in any sort of conversation here because you have proven yourself to be of no credibility, a nonsensical bore.

nothing you can say can prove that chemtrails are a figment of the imagination of highly qualified credible people worldwide, so how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU and stop pretending you are some sort of authoritive arbiter on anything.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 14:08:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

First off i applaud you for seeking facts rather that resorting to slander as i have all too commonly seen among alternate media. On that note i would like to make known some experiments the Australian government was carrying out! My grandfather was an aircraft maintenance technician many years ago. He obsessively tells me of an experiment they carried out where dry ice was shoveled into a modified chute into the clouds. He claimed they were at the aircraft altitude ceiling and the dry ice would cause the clouds to drop their water. He claimed they were wearing oxygen masks to breathe!

By Stephen on 2014 10 29 - 14:39:09
From the entry 'Chemtrails brownshirts renew threats against TNRA'.

Andrew Adams,

‘looking up’ does not tell you much about atmospheric physics. You can’t see that the air gets cooler with increasing altitude and decreasing density. You can’t see the wildly varying relative humidity, the pockets of ice supersaturation or the jet streams.
It takes knowledge and measurements to understand and make predictions. That’s what meteorologists and atmospheric scientists are there for, after all.

Regarding the notorious “Case Orange” text - supposedly compiled by an anonymous group of people - it is not even coming close to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It piles up a lot of conjecture together with well-meaning statements that everybody can subscribe to. It also constantly mixes up contrails, cloud seeding and low-altitude chemical dispersion which are entirely unrelated things.

Can you point me to the best evidence in this text for the claim that persistant contrails are deliberately mixed with spraying material, as part of “large-scale geoengineering projects through commercial aviation”? I can’t find any.

What do you think is the single most important fact that supports the theory that persistant contrails are not just ice crystals? I am ready to be convinced if it stands up to scrutiny.

By Josh on 2014 10 28 - 09:51:35
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

ankara travestileri ankara travestileri ,travesti zuhalin kişisel resim galeri haberler günün sözü icerik ankaradakitravestiler.com

By Ankara Travestileri on 2014 10 28 - 05:01:25
From the entry 'Meet Brendon O'Connell, Australia's first political prisoner'.

Josh
Pardon me iff I dont take you seriously. Chemtrails or if you like, persistant contrails, are nothing new. To suggest that because something is “exotic” means that it is hypothetical, shows your disingenuousness or your stupidity, or both.. Ive learnt long ago not to trust unqualified anonymous numpties on the internet who say things like, “Still no evidence that persistent contrails are anything but.” when all one needs to do to discredit that nonesense is to be in possession of a functioning cognisant ability, and to look up.  If thats not enough, there is plenty of scientific proof also. that shows chemtrails are actually not that exotic at all, that they have been used for decades for various purposes. It is all documented. I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, you have said it all, countless times already in this post. You really should get yourself a hobby, maybe go outside once in a while, unless youre scared.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 27 - 09:47:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

two remarks in reply to your post:

1. The “British academic” is David Lim, a former PhD candidate at University of Reading, his subject “Construction Management and Engineering”. His field of research included urban/domestic energy concepts, like in this project.

He has dropped out in 2013 after getting involved with the chemtrail conspiracy theory (and others). He now calls himself an “independent researcher”, but unfortunately he is obviously just reurgitating some long debunked mainstream claims of the chemtrail community, like the one you quoted.


2. The original text of H.R. 2977 was written by Alfred Webre, Carol Rosin and others from the ‘Institute for Cooperation in Space’ (ICIS).

The term ‘chemtrails’ is listed under the category ‘exotic’, along with other hypothetical weapons like ultrasonic, tectonic or psychotronic ones (see original text).

Dennis Kucinich removed these ‘exotic weapons’ in a second version of the bill. It seems he hadn’t scrutinized the first version properly. He said “When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’” (Reference : Ohio Newspaper “The Plain Dealer”, 2003-03-12)

Carol Rosin later commented on the modification: “This bill will only ban space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit. It is NOT a bill to ban chemtrails and/or psychotronics or mind control devises or any specific weapons listed in the category of definitions in the original bill.” (Reference)

So that’s all there is to it. Apparently, you can write anything into a congressional bill; there is no obligation for reality checks (unlike with scientific papers).

Still no evidence that persistent contrails are anything but.

By Josh on 2014 10 26 - 21:38:41
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

John Pilger and his mate chumpsky are disingenous gate keepers. Nothing they say here is unheard of, or un reported elsewhere.. The whole world knows of why israel is copping justifiable criticism. They pretend to be on the side of truth and justice, all the time perpetuating the lies.

Pilger stated the most “plausible” scenario for 911, is that “they” let it happen.  His good mate julian assange is on the record saying that those who question the official account of 911 “annoy” him.  After more than a decade of investigation of the evidence, the consensus would suggest the most “plausible” explanation would be that “they” engineered, executed and implemented the cover up.

Pilger is therefore either willfully ignorant, or deliberately deceptive.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 25 - 10:51:03
From the entry 'How you have been betrayed by your government and your media'.

Categories