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

I think the search for answers is pretty obvious now Fenton, it seems most avenues end up in the same place so for you and your followers, I think you are doing a great job, but its time to expose the elephant in the living room, once 9-11, is sorted and the world wars, its pretty much a Rothschild & Israhelli terrorist state purpetrating (ALL) the worlds angst! Imagine no refugees because no wars, MM its like that cure the scource, Breddon O,connell (SPOT ON) mate. Lets support people like this who see the Truth. Here,s to a better world smile Bring it on !

By Lachlan on 2015 01 29 - 20:47:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Sorry guys, “homophobes” in my last post should have read islamophobes…sometimes my finger get a little ahead of my thinking!

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 29 - 16:56:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

josh anonymous thinks his banal obfuscations can dispel any and all concerns regarding atmospheric spraying.
you may believe your bullshit bluff and bluster - but it does nothing to prove your case of no such thing as chemtrails, when that picture is but one of hundreds you will see if you enter chemtrail satellite into a search engine..

you can explain all them away with your unqualified babble - fact is.. if trails require specific rare conditions in oreder to persist, even for a short while.. ie; a few minutes, that doesnt go anywhere near explaining what is shown covering an entire country..  your full of it..  unless you can post evidence of your claim, that there is no such thing as chemtrails, i dont care for anything you have to say, you have proven repeatedly your disposition towards mendacity..

so again.. to put it bluntly.. put up or STFU.

By theehwh on 2015 01 29 - 14:53:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

aewt/Andrew Adams/Skywatcher,

the image you posted was taken from this original NASA publication.

Note that it’s an enhanced infrared image, but nevertheless it was a day with many trails in that region (January 29, 2004).

Here is the whole satellite photo (thumbnail) in real color, which provides some perspective about the proportions. Note the cloud band over Florida with the embedded contrails:

The original high-res image (17 MB) is also still available here.


Again, “rare” is a relative term; the actual numbers and the context are more telling.
As the study of R. Sausen and others says (I have referenced it before):

The annual global mean value is 0.09%

(From “A Diagnostic Study of the Global Distribution of Contrails Part I: Present Day Climate”)

Now, the surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. That means roughly 460 000 square kilometers of pure contrail area - at every moment, excluding all the gaps, and obviously concentrated in areas where there is air traffic.

The central point is that this is the average, so of course there can be local and temporal maxima. Nothing there to make scientists fret about.

By Josh on 2015 01 29 - 01:41:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

it appears from this picture

that the specific, RARE, ( i say rare because that is what was said in an article posted by josh anonymous himself ) atmospheric conditions for contrails to persist… actually must in reality, occur all over the world, all the bloody time!

josh and fenton are liars. simple as that.

By aewt on 2015 01 28 - 13:12:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

At least Christendom has modified its act…even the Pope calls for peace and reconciliation, admited the Churches complicity in past atrocities, apologized to the Jews and so on…

re free speech: I suppose Hereward needs to be very careful about what he says, and would be fully aware that his every word is being monitored by others. I think he does a great job and has on more than one occasion come very close to the edge. He’s also entitled to his opinion, and although I don’t agree with it at times, in my opinion, it doesn’t detract from the work he is doing.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 28 - 10:51:17
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.

By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 04:26:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?

I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.

If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.

As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 22:40:05
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

another good example of free speech being stifled was something that you touched upon in this episode, and that was the example of julian blanc being refused entry into the country.

this guy, mr blanc, posted some pretty stupid stuff on facebook, however im unsure as to whether he did anything that really justified him being refused entry into the country. apparently he advocated violence against women by posting a graph on fb that showed how abusive men control women and he had some gambit he was running that involved putting your hands around a womans throat. im not quite sure what that was all about, but the idea that you would be able to just romp around choking women without getting your ass kicked by white knights is pretty stupid. if the man was an abuser, then how did he get a visa? it doesn’t take much to get put on an assault charge, especially against a woman

ironically, some of his students where assaulted by feminazis in the protest against him

regarding islam, only one religion has a figurehead who was without doubt, a warlord. Most non mulslims who defend islam dont know anything about the religion.

Do you have any idea about the military conquests of the first muslims? Do you know about the verses in the koran that directly call for violence? Do you know how many men where decapitated by mohammeds army? do you know how many surrendered men or non combatants where decapitated by mohammeds army? how many women where raped? how many people enslaved or forced to live as second class citizens by the first muslims?

when you do an episode on this, please directly answer these questions

also, the charlie hebdo cover says, ‘massacre in egypt, the koran is shit’ it doesnt stop bullets’. it doesnt just say the koran is shit

 

By rattus rattus on 2015 01 27 - 21:51:15
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think “raising important concerns” about Islam implies that I or anyone think that 1.6 billion Muslims are flawed or evil, but I certainly think there is evidence enough to demonstrate (by our standards at least) that their religion is definitely flawed and evil. I suggest you read the Koran and tell me how this medieval mind muck is of benefit to mankind in the age of quantum physics. One need only look at how most Islamic countries are governed, which, to my understanding of the word, are evil and backward. I think Muslims have a different understanding of the concept : “evil”...For example, the penalty for apostasy (changing religion or opting out of “the religion of peace” is death; the penalty for homosexuality is often death (beheading) torture, mutilation and or imprisonment; Women are often stoned or killed by their parents - usually father - for not wearing the veil; women are second class citizens; children as young as 6 can be married ( but its not OK to have sex with them until they are 9 ); women are stoned to death for adultery; thieves have their hands cut off, and any criticism of the Prophet is usually punished by intimidation, death or mass murder…and its all there in the Koran, page after page. Then we have the wholesale slaughter of villages in Africa, and terrorist attacks happening almost everyday in many Muslim and non-Muslim countries.Meanwhile, in WA, some self proclaimed Sydney cleric wants to build an “army”  And if ordinary Australians express their concern when it starts to happen over here, they are branded as racists and homophobes. I don’t think so.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-cz9RN35k&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 27 - 21:18:41
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Categories