by Anne Bayefsky appears today on Fox News.
The response to the death of Usama bin Laden by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, and two “experts” appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council ought to be ringing a lot of alarm bells right now.
Just last month, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations told Congress that “when we meet our financial obligations to the U.N., we make Americans safer.”
On the contrary, U.N. reaction to Bin Laden’s death indicates that the Obama administration’s warm embrace of the organization is endangering American lives.
The U.N.’s top human rights official took time this past week to concern herself about the treatment Bin Laden received as he was killed. She demanded to know “the precise facts surrounding his killing” for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, “counter-terrorism activity…in compliance with international law” means “you’re not allowed…to commit extra-judicial killings.” And this requirement would only be satisfied if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their “stated…intention…to arrest bin Laden if they could.”
On Friday, two professors and part-time U.N. “experts,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, issued a joint statement on Bin Laden’s killing. The two academics claimed that “the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment.” They also insisted that the U.N. was entitled to receive “more facts” “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.” Those standards would be violated, they claimed, unless “the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”
The suggestion from these U.N. authority-figures that America is criminally at fault for killing Bin Laden if their terms have not been satisfied is both offensive and legally false.
Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.
In the minds of those at the U.N, however, the life-and-death struggle to defend freedom from Islamic terrorists is occurring in a vacuum. They insist that the applicable legal regime is international human rights law which considers the single individual and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, requires due process and condemns anything else as “extrajudicial” killing. Their response to the laws of warfare is: “what war?”
So here we are. The world’s most wanted terrorist is finally dead and U.N. actors are questioning his death in the name of human rights.
Scheinin’s full U.N. job title is self-explanatory. He is the “rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.” Promoting human rights is one side of the ledger and countering terrorism is allegedly on the other side.
Finding the United Nations on the opposite side from the effort by democracies to protect human rights in the real world is not an isolated phenomenon.
The United Nations still has no definition of terrorism. Standing in the way of a universally-agreed definition are the 22 members of the Arab League and the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Each of these groups has signed on to an “anti-terrorism” treaty that represents the culmination of their agreed ideology on the subject. The Arab Terrorism Convention, for example, exempts from its idea of terrorism everything from suicide-bombing to slitting the throats of 3-month old babies under the umbrella of “all cases of struggle by whatever means…against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination.”
As a result, on May 2, 2011 the Security Council issued a unanimous presidential statement on Bin Laden’s death which was very careful to “reaffirm…other applicable international counter-terrorism instruments.” After all, Council members currently include a representative of a terrorist organization, since Lebanon’s government is controlled by Hezbollah.
The U.N.’s post-9/11 counter-terrorism centerpiece is its “Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy”, adopted by the General Assembly in 2006. Its very first section is a promise “to undertake…measures aimed at addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” More specifically, the U.N. worried first and foremost about “youth unemployment, …marginalization and the subsequent sense of victimization” of terrorist wannabes.
Consequently, the Security Council presidential statement on Bin Laden’s death immediately changed the subject from his demise to demanding the world “address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” And they weren’t talking about hate, intolerance, antisemitism, and just plain evil acts.
Of course, Bin Laden, himself puts the lie to this diplomatic claptrap since the world’s number one terrorist was a man of wealth from a privileged background.
U.N. double-talk on terrorism has reached a new low with the grotesque suggestion that the killing of Usama bin Laden violated his human rights. And handing the U.N. more than 6 billion dollars of taxpayer money each year, leaves Americans far less safe.
BHO will learn very quickly how friendly his UN friends (57 members of the OIC) are.
Reading the Qur’an, the Hadith and Sharia (never mind Mohammad was a criminal, cheater, liar, pedophile, war monger etc.) are a MUST for anybody involved in international activities, politics in particular.
The Muslims deal with concepts/rules totally different from the West and if they are the majority at the UN we should abide soon or later by the Qur’an and Sharia!!!!!!!!
Since Muslims benefit from an automatic majority at the UN, BHO should submit to the Islamic rule of peaceful obedience/submission and submit America too!
Will American accept that!
For many Muslims, Hitler is a hero. The West refuses to accept this. Where is Kafka, perhaps he could explain this to the West.
Bill is correct – I did not post anything on Israpundit yesterday (May 10th), although posts from “me” appeared here and on two other articles yesterday. Thank you for bringing this to my attention Bill, and for assuming I would not wish your or anyone else’s (other than personal or political terrorists) demise. By the way, it is a federal crime to hack into and impersonate another’s email identity. And by the way, I certainly do think all remaining true democracies should pull out of the UN and it should shrivel up and blow away.
Lori (actually)
What is this double talk??
Nathan, I apologize I should have known from the start.
Your no doubt a liberal, left wing democrat who supports Mr. Obama (the anti-Semite).
Trust me he is no friend of Israel.
As Mark Levin says, you can tell the liberals by their name calling.
You no doubt waddle in with the MSNBC group, the real attack dogs.
Laura and ron, I know dan friedman is hymie and I suspect so is nathan. He always comes in pairs one to support him or each other. don’t bother replying to his comments he’s just baiting you both..
Nathan, yes I write from my heart and my brain. Let’s not get carried away with name calling. Agree or disagree.
Nathan tell me something. Do you believe the world is a better place because of the UN?
Even though we are the main financial contributor the rouge nations could care less what we propose or say.
If the US would pull out of the UN, trust me GB, France, Germany, Israel and the likes would follow.
The rouge nations (including Russia, China, etc) would leave as they would not have the likes of us to kick around.
A “Free World Alliance” could better serve other nations in need of help and would not have to worry about veto’s.
Again Nathan trust me Barry Goldwater knew what he was talking about.
Nice of you to say that Dan.
I must have gotten under your skin somewhere along the way.
Shame.
Nice of you to say that Dan. I must have gotten under your skin at one time.
Sounds like peskin to me.
And dan friedman, I suppose you know a great deal about it.
I agree with Ron that we should cease funding the UN and go even further by disbanding it altogether. I see nothing positive for us coming out of that terror-supporting organization. I really don’t see how maintaining the UN has any benefits and why disbanding it would further aid our enemies.
Thanks Yamit
Your right we the US and Israel should get out of this organization.
Israel pays dues and in return gets no respect. Like paying someone to punch you in the mouth now and then. Not a good picture.
We’ll always have Micronesia!!!
It’s you who can learn from the likes of rongrand.
ron your good basic instincts make up for any lack of specific facts. Others take facts and come to the wrong conclusions. You always come to the correct conclusions with or without the facts. That puts you head and shoulders above most of the pack.
We should have said goodbye to the UN after they passed the Zionism is racist resolution. It;s never too late we should get out and save our financial contribution and make all UN agencies and NGO’s persona-non-grata in Israel.
Thanks Bill, wish I would have said that.
I catch Anne’s column now and then and her appearance on FOX and Friends. She knows the UN.
Give me time and I’ll should get higher than a Zero.
G-d where is Ayn when you need her?
Lori, Bayefsky’s conclusion does implicitly suggest that America turn its back on the UN by ceasing its annual funding contribution of $6 billion, which only serves to support an institution that has gone so far off the rails, the U.S. has thereby become less safe.
Without that U.S. funding, just how long do you figure the UN could survive?
Since you say Bayefsky’s words cannot be so construed, what do you take from her words?
Given the U.N.’s ever worsening moral inversions and flight from reason that Bayefsky has for years been writing on that impacts mostly Israel and the U.S., just what do you figure Bayefsky would suggest the U.S. do as regards the U.N. to make America and Israel and the rest of the West for that matter, more safe?
Indeed, what of your own suggestions in that regard?
Anne could speak volumes on the reasons why we (the free world nations) should get out of this worthless organization, a cesspool of scumbag nation leaders with the world’s worst human right violations.
We need to form the “Free World Alliance” to include but not limited to the US, GB, France, Germany, Italy, India, Israel etc.
Scumbags need not apply.
Israel has long been the target of these scumbags, being blamed for everything including bad weather.
Yet when disaster strikes throughout the world guess who is one of the first responders to provide not only aid but the best medical assistance. ISRAEL.