09 June 2006

Al-Zarqawi: A case for arrest

I'm utterly appalled that a browse through LibDemBlogs.com and the LDYS forums has failed to come up with a single person challenging the US and Iraqi forces decision to kill the man, rather than bring him to trial.

If they knew where he was (which the deployment of two highly destructive bombs suggests they did), why did they not go in there and capture him. His subsequent trial, like the current trial of Saddam Hussein, would show that the US and Iraq is tough on terror, but that it combats it within the framework of the rule of law.


The picture of his dead face creeps me out

I know it's laughable that I'm expecting the US to act within the rule of law, but if you ask many people across the world what America stands for, one of the answers that might back to you will be "the rule of law". In the West, we expect due process and a fair trial. It might be obvious that someone is guilty, but this must still be proven in a court of law.

It is widely thought that one of the aims of the Al-Qaeda attacks is to fundamentally change the nature of our democracy and perhaps, with no condemnation forthcoming from the mainstream media of this unnecessarily violent end to a man's life, Al-Qaeda has now got its own way.

See Also:

3 comments:

Jock Coats said...

I agree. The case was made by Bigley's brother too.

Edis said...

Thnak you for this - I agree I should have taken my own comments a stage further to make your point.
It now seems he was alive when found after the bombing but died shortly thereafter. Is this the background to the first Iraqi government statement, which said he had been shot dead by Iraqi forces?

Simon said...

Jock, Zarqawi killed Ken Bigley - one of many many innocent victims. His brother may be forgiving and might have preferred to arrest Zarqawi and put him on trial, but have you stopped to consider what the outcome would have been? Execution by beheading is the usual Arabic punishment for murder. The alternative would have been incarcertion at the hands of the USA or the UK. For the next two decades nor more he would have been a symbol for jihadist resistance.

Zarqawi was a legitimate target in a self declared war. He was a threat to the fragile emerging democracy in Iraq and I fail to see why he should have had any a specially protected status above and beyond any other combatant in a war. He did not surrender.

The tendency to hand-wring and apply higher standards than are feasible, morally desirable, or legally required when fighting a conflict with a violent and immoral enemy is to tie one hand behind our backs. We can't afford to let Iraq slide into the arms of the Caliphatist Jihadis - not just for our own interests but for the Iraqi people who by and large have supported considerably more moderate poltical forces in the elections that they have had over the last few years. Equally, we need to resist the morally relativistic tendency to reflexively criticse the USA at all times for every action in Iraq. After all, whose side are we on? If you are on the side of the Iraqi people then you should rightly welcome the death of a murderous thug who would gladly have bombed Iraq into a Taliban-esque totalitarian nightmare.