| the u.s. system of justice is based on one fundamental principle : 'innocent until proven guilty'. in regards to this principle it is every man and woman's right, regardless colour; conviction or belief, to speak out in their defence. the u.s. has violated this principle by not sharing their so-called incriminating evidence against osama bin laden with the rest of the world. true, a happy few members of nato actually saw the 'evidence', but that does not necessarily guarantee the authenticity and validity of the 'evidence', furthermore, these happy few by far represent the public opinion of the world. once more the u.s. has taken justice into it's own hands and is operating on a 'need-to-know-basis' according to it's own terms. in regard to the right to stand up and defend oneself it is acceptable to state that osama bin laden is not a u.s. citizen and that therefore u.s. laws do not apply to him, nevertheless, this does not give the u.s. the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. in their actions they aim to target osama bin laden and the taliban, but we should not forget that these people form a minority in afghanistan, so far the bombardments have had little to no effect and the only people suffering are regular citizens that have no hand whatsoever in afghanistan's current regime. the u.s. is unnecessarily complicating middle east relations is permanently destroying the lines of communication between the west and the east. as a result people in the islamic world are looking to strike back by any means necessary (sound familiar?), injustice causes victims to find a justice of their own. the case of osama bin laden is not an isolated incident, for several decades the u.s. have been interfering in countries where they have no right to interfere, they blow problems out of proportion, send the marines in and by doing so try to make a buck. ever since the declaration of independence was read out the u.s. have made it their task to meddle in everybody's interests, for their own benefit. in recent history this policy showed modest success in europe, korea and several african, south-american and middle-eastern countries. recent history however also shows that their tactics do not always pay off: vietnam, cuba, iraq, israel, ... but this does not ratify the course of action (terrorist attacks, including the bombing of public buildings; the killing of innocent civilians; the use of chemical weapons; ...) that some groups have chosen to retaliate against the u.s. but is does leave open the possibility for a more understanding attitude towards these groups, they are fighting an enemy they cannot defeat in frontal combat, silent warfare is their only tool. they should nevertheless carefully consider who they target, in these terms the civilians of countries the u.s. terrorizes are equal to u.s. civilians, they both are third parties in the wrong place, at the wrong time. the u.s. public opinion does however fervently and sternly support the actions of their government and so take on partial accountability. this cannot be said about the afghan people who are merely fighting against the violation of their basic rights. the u.s. should stop waging war on people and countries over which they have no say and start exporting one of their more dear basic ideals: 'freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all'. ... |
