For the last ten years Osama bin Laden has been public enemy number one, the face of the enemy in the war on terror, Islamic extremism and a man responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, then you wake up one morning and he is dead.
Was it right an American special forces Navy Seal shot him dead in his compound in Pakistan, or should more effort have been made to take this man and publicly put him on trial for his atrocities?
President George W Bush said in the aftermath of 9/11 he wanted this man dead or alive. At the time the media made more than a few jokes about yet another cowboy metaphor from the Texan president. In fact this clichéd sentiment was closer to the trust than anybody believed.
It is fair to say all those who stand against Islamic extremism and international terrorism are pleased to see bin Laden out of the picture, but there have been more than a few raised eyebrows about the fact he was shot, killed and buried with no chance of a trail taking place.
As citizens of developed nations we are taught to believe in our fair and balanced legal system, innocence until guilt is proven, the right to a fair trial and the concept of due process.
Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić have all faced war crimes tribunals in the Netherlands following the atrocities they carried out in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Bosnia, so why not bin Laden.
The total number of people bin Laden has killed, directly or indirectly, will probably never truly be known, but then again the same can be said for all the aforementioned war criminals.
Under normal circumstances the perfect outcome for this would have been the capture of bin Laden, a public trial and sentencing for his crimes. Unfortunately, this just raises further questions.
Where would this trial be carried out, what real evidence is there, what kind of jury could be empanelled and how can he be sentenced?
Are those complaining about the killing of bin Laden really claiming he should have been put out in front of a twelve person jury in New York City, and would he have received a life sentence or faced the death penalty?
A public jury in New York could never have reached an impartial verdict on this man, a life sentence would have been a waste of money and he has already faced his death sentence.
It is also important to remember this man was an independent citizen, not a recognised head of state. The rest of the world may not have like Hussein, but he was the leader of Iraq.
War crimes trials in The Hague are reserved for heads of state, and their colleges, who have oppressed, tortured and killed innocent members of their population. Under no circumstances does bin Laden fit any of these criteria and so the only way it would work would be for him to face a normal criminal trial under a terrorism act.
A major problem arising here is his trial would not have been an acceptable piece of justice and would more than likely have served as a target or monument in itself for jihadist Muslims around the world. The fact the Americans did not want him to be martyred was the primary reason for burying him at sea instead of in a land-based grave.
The fact which goes against the grain the most in this situation is the fact he was unarmed at the time of his killing. He made no effort to surrender (hardly a surprise) and apparently there were weapons near at hand (again not shocking).
As the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said the killing of an unarmed man leaves “a very uncomfortable feeling”. It is hardwired in to every decent persons mind to not kill an unarmed person purely because it is morally and ethically wrong.
This argument has been used by those questioning the tactics used by the Americans during this raid, but strangely this has never been raised about any other terrorist killing, although admittedly none have ever been this high profile.
The public would never shed a tear (admittedly nobody cried over the death of bin Laden) over the killing of an unarmed drug lord in Columbia, a renegade general in Africa or a murderer in any other country. So why is this issue so high on the public agenda now?
Is it simply because of the high profile nature of the target, or is it because this man has been top of the FBI most wanted list for more than a decade now?
It is important in this situation to remember the situation and the man we are dealing with. This was not a crazed leader oppressing his people or a dictator throwing opposition leaders in slave labour camps. He was a terrorist at the head of a small group of disillusioned Muslims and a target of war.
Many things during the war on terror have disgusted people including the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
These things are unacceptable and avoidable, a night raid of a compound in Pakistan and the subsequent killing of a terrorist leader is not.
Could this situation have been handled better, maybe, and would it have been better for him to stand trial for what he has done in accordance with developed legal systems, certainly, but nobody opposed to the killing has been able to explain how it could have been achieved.
The world is a better place without this man and although his death will probably do nothing to quell the resolve of his followers it may just be one of the final coffin nails.
On a personal note I was pleased to see his body was buried in accordance with Islamic customs. It was vital for the world to see the Americans treat an Islamic body with the respect it deserves in accordance with the customs of the religion.
