Osama's Death. Some inconvenient Questions from a disinterested inquirer

OK. Osama is dead; let’s drown in jubilation, for we can live henceforth peacefully under the auspices of the greatest arbiter of all time, The USA, except that we’ve to put up with a little bit this and a little of that – economic recession, falling wage, rising health care cost and national debt.

But here are a few points of thought from the one who wants to exercise his right to dissent.

As Obama triumphantly and characteristically ‘reported the world’ – as if he and his country were morally obliged to this task- that Osama had been killed and the world – mostly American – can now heaved a sigh of relief, a sense of dissent begum to creep into my mind.

In the first place, the killing of Obama in a foreign land, I would argue, has seriously dented the moral supremacy, if there is any such thing ever exists, of America. It’s the basic premise of Law and Justice that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and however much grave crime he must have allegedly committed, he must be allowed to plead innocence. One can draw upon the precedents in history:

The retribution for humankind’s greatest crime, the Holocaust, warranted a trial of the henchmen of Hitler who orchestrated the crime of murdering about 6 million Jews, not mention to that this trial followed the mass destruction of Russia and Europe by and subsequent downright defeat of the Nazis, so the sense of vengeance was quite strong and the perpetrators’ crime so grave that they could be killed without any trial and without being morally ashamed.

My country, no so morally supreme, fared batter in this respect. We offered trial to Nathuram Godse, who killed Mahatma Gandhi, to Ajmal Kasab, to Afzal Guru.

I think, the Americans and by extension the world has a right to know what Osama would have had to plead had he been offered a fair trial in a Court of justice.

Secondly, Osama no less a terrorist than the US administration which has so far killed thousands of innocent people, many among them children and the elderly, for no reason. US have no more rights to drop bombs on Afghanistan and Pakistan than it had to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in WWII.

Thirdly, isn't it bizarre that a state [USA] who has so much clout on the other [Pakistan] as can decide its government and for all its state-of-the-art intelligence and technology remained unbeknown to its greatest enemy being harboured in its very client state?

It has been much touted that the world would be a better place to live without the Al-Queada and Taliban; but then so a world must have conceived of when the edifice of Fascism was raised to ground in 1945. More than sixty-five years has passed since the demise of Hitler, the world remain as antagonistic a place to live in as it was then.