Custom Search
|
|
Lofty Matters: Biting The Bullet, The Rule Of Law Or The Rule Of War?
This history of London as an ongoing amalgamation of villages is referenced in the cartography of the city. Whereas the later city cultures, such as New York, are laid out on a grid system, one glance at the map of London reveals to the tutored eye the lanes and byways of this more rural past. Why the Mayor's strategy of re-connecting with this history is actually important lies in the fact that villages are integral communities that historically are very socially supportive. Rather than rely on a grand municipality governed by endless legislation, London has the ability to make the sum of its parts generate the value of its wholeness. Such a multiplicity of identity, recognizing local values, combining to make the identity of London is actually a microcosm of the movement towards a Global Human Identity. When we also consider that London is one of the most multi-cultural, multi-lingual human aggregations on the planet, then this paradigm which Johnson suggests, actually has a lot more implication than a local political position. Perhaps it is true to say that London is the world and what works in London can also work in that greater world. Recent events beyond London have seen what I would present to you as a very urgent challenge to the rule of law. The matter I am referring to is the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Now before we read another word please let me assure you that I have never and never will support violence, I do not support terrorism or have any respect for anyone who chooses that path. The rule of law is the future for our planet, of that I remain absolutely convinced. And if that future is to work, if that Global Human Identity is to emerge then it has to be inclusive not exclusive. If anyone is left out then it simply cannot be a global model. That is the real challenge we face and that is why our stable, prosperous future can only be attained through the rule of law. As I see such a clear path I then feel compelled to question the actions and methods of the United States and in such deliberations feel I can suggest that this assassination* is actually a very dubious judgment call from the most powerful leadership in this world. What is the oxymoron in the manger here is that the United States is the most litigious country in this world, the rule of law within the states determines policy at almost every social level. Some have argued this jurisdiction has gone too far but the fact remains that if you want a legal opinion on the price of a tin of beans then America is where you can receive that judgment. So if that Bin Laden extra-judicial execution carried out by one jurisdiction in the another "global village's jurisdiction" without notice or approval of that external jurisdiction becomes a precedent where is the future of the Global Human Identity? On the much more mundane level, once a state acts externally to the rule of law then is the legal profession denied the fees and dues of the process of trial? Obviously the Bin Laden assassination is an exceptional case but as we all know it is in the exceptional that the law is most needed. The Bin Laden family are questioning, as the BBC reports, "why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world". This comes from family members who do not support the actions of Osama. Perhaps the question now for the legal profession is whether they have the desire or ability to test this decision ("Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the killing was lawful and "an act of national self-defence") in a court and allow the rule of law to stand firm. This matter ultimately has to be a question of leadership and it has to be a question of the validity of global leadership and hence why I have stated that I believe this event to be a very dubious judgment call. There is no doubt that amongst many the assassination was well received. Only yesterday I heard a man in the pub questioning the doubts expressed by the arch-bishop of Canterbury on this issue. In a loud voice he asked if the clergyman was on drugs, what was the matter with him, Osama deserved this fate, look at what he did. Surely this is the view of the uneducated mob, something the history of London speaks of, and fails to see that the difference between blowing up two buildings and murdering thousands of people and holding the architect of terror to account through extra-judicial assassination is not recognisable in a system based on the rule of law. More than any other reason this lack of identifiable process has to be the prime motivation for testing this action within the rule of law. The outcome, as with all legal matters, is not certain and no-one is here presuming to pre-empt a decision, but surely a proper decision has to be made about this action and establish what is legal in this world and what is not. Equally certain is that such a decision has to be arrived at within the rule of law rather than imposed from elected political leadership. If that cannot be achieved then the rule of law is nothing more than a catchphrase and I for one believe this is far too important a matter to denigrate to a media slogan. I started from the position of a reception with the Mayor of London and therefore it is only right and proper to note that Boris Johnson's opinion on this matter is his own and in no way does my writing here represent his views. However, my purpose in connecting these two events is in highlighting an issue of leadership. Johnson's vision of "village London", as I have stated, can be seen to be a microcosm of the Global Village. One can therefore reasonably ask if one village of London entered another village of London and simply killed a known felon without due process would that be acceptable to the mayor? Boris Johnson is a very flamboyant character, he divides opinion but for almost all, critics and allies, they recognise his fundamental humanity and I am sure many people feel, that no matter the failings they may perceive, he is a man to speak out when it is needed. The question I am posing here to the legal fraternity is are you willing to speak out in defence of the rule of law? * 12.05.2011. The United States has declared that this event was not an assassination. US Attorney General Eric Holder said, "We do respect the rule of law, there are appropriate ways in which we conduct ourselves and expect our people to conduct themselves, and I think those Navy Seals conducted themselves in a way that's consistent with American, [and] British values." and "I actually think that the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's is what separates the United States, the United Kingdom, our allies, from those who we are fighting," source: BBC Web Site One word: "Tasers" Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com evolve.humanrightstv.com/felix-columbidae/2011/lofty-matters-biting-bullet-rule-law-or-rule-war www.humanrightstv.com www.humanrightstv.com/cultures-of-resistance |
|