Law, justice and the death of Osama Bin Laden

Does it matter if the killing was against the law?

There was probably no lawful basis for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but for many that does not really matter.

Sometimes, one can perhaps contend, there may be justice without a legal basis or in breach of due process.

And, in any case, even the sensitive souls concerned with any legalistic irregularities are unlikely to get too vexed over this particular death.

Nonetheless, the Orwell Prize shortlisted Heresy Corner blog today asks when is an execution not an execution. He makes the point that, on the basis of a EU Commission statement and the known circumstances of the death, there appears to have been an extra-judicial execution. He concludes:

So it was a punishment for a crime after all. And the killing of a specified individual, ordered and carried out by the state as punishment for a criminal act is, in most normal definitions of the term, an "execution". What the EU is effectively saying, then, is that capital punishment is only acceptable if it is done on the basis of secret orders, issued by a politician, with no trial and no possibility of appeal. Hmm.

I do not think that we have sufficient information to form even a preliminary view as to either the circumstances of the death or the true intentions of those who effected it. The death may have been intentional, or the result of resistance, or caused by incompetence. We simply do not yet know.

There is also no particular reason to rely on a statement of the EU Commission in characterising the nature of the death. All the available information is so far only indicative; it is too early to say anything about this death with certainty.

However, there is the wider point of the legal context for a politician ordering any such killing, whether as an assassination or an "execution".

On the face of it, there is no legal basis for an American President to order the killing of anyone. Furthermore, such a killing would presumably be contrary to the local law of where the killing takes place and possibly even the public law of the United States, as well as in breach of international instruments (to the extent that they have any practical legal effect).

Such a killing would therefore be unlawful (in not having a legal basis for the power exercised) and illegal (in being in breach of applicable laws).

But if one is to take the rule of law and due process seriously, then it is at the margins where they matter most: where the victim is deemed to "deserve it". If the rule of law and due process are posited as absolutes, then ordering such a killing is necessarily wrong at all times and in all circumstances.

Alternatively, if the rule of law and due process only have a qualified status, and so (somehow) can be disregarded in exceptional situations, then the difficult question is where one draws the line.

And, in terms of international affairs, it also becomes unclear exactly what are the values and norms which the West are seeking to defend when an assassination or "execution" is ordered: it is rather absurd to defend the rule of law and due process by undermining them.

The death of Osama Bin Laden is undoubtedly a welcome event, even if it was perhaps an unlawful one. There is a sense that it was a just outcome, even if there had not been any due process. Nonetheless, if the death was unlawfully ordered, there remains at least the conceptual and ethical problem identified on Heresy Corner.

But it is not a problem which many of us will lose sleep over tonight.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and co-judge of the 2011 Orwell Prize for blogging.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty
Show Hide image

The tale of Battersea power station shows how affordable housing is lost

Initially, the developers promised 636 affordable homes. Now, they have reduced the number to 386. 

It’s the most predictable trick in the big book of property development. A developer signs an agreement with a local council promising to provide a barely acceptable level of barely affordable housing, then slashes these commitments at the first, second and third signs of trouble. It’s happened all over the country, from Hastings to Cumbria. But it happens most often in London, and most recently of all at Battersea power station, the Thames landmark and long-time London ruin which I wrote about in my 2016 book, Up In Smoke: The Failed Dreams of Battersea Power Station. For decades, the power station was one of London’s most popular buildings but now it represents some of the most depressing aspects of the capital’s attempts at regeneration. Almost in shame, the building itself has started to disappear from view behind a curtain of ugly gold-and-glass apartments aimed squarely at the international rich. The Battersea power station development is costing around £9bn. There will be around 4,200 flats, an office for Apple and a new Tube station. But only 386 of the new flats will be considered affordable

What makes the Battersea power station development worse is the developer’s argument for why there are so few affordable homes, which runs something like this. The bottom is falling out of the luxury homes market because too many are being built, which means developers can no longer afford to build the sort of homes that people actually want. It’s yet another sign of the failure of the housing market to provide what is most needed. But it also highlights the delusion of politicians who still seem to believe that property developers are going to provide the answers to one of the most pressing problems in politics.

A Malaysian consortium acquired the power station in 2012 and initially promised to build 517 affordable units, which then rose to 636. This was pretty meagre, but with four developers having already failed to develop the site, it was enough to satisfy Wandsworth council. By the time I wrote Up In Smoke, this had been reduced back to 565 units – around 15 per cent of the total number of new flats. Now the developers want to build only 386 affordable homes – around 9 per cent of the final residential offering, which includes expensive flats bought by the likes of Sting and Bear Grylls. 

The developers say this is because of escalating costs and the technical challenges of restoring the power station – but it’s also the case that the entire Nine Elms area between Battersea and Vauxhall is experiencing a glut of similar property, which is driving down prices. They want to focus instead on paying for the new Northern Line extension that joins the power station to Kennington. The slashing of affordable housing can be done without need for a new planning application or public consultation by using a “deed of variation”. It also means Mayor Sadiq Khan can’t do much more than write to Wandsworth urging the council to reject the new scheme. There’s little chance of that. Conservative Wandsworth has been committed to a developer-led solution to the power station for three decades and in that time has perfected the art of rolling over, despite several excruciating, and occasionally hilarious, disappointments.

The Battersea power station situation also highlights the sophistry developers will use to excuse any decision. When I interviewed Rob Tincknell, the developer’s chief executive, in 2014, he boasted it was the developer’s commitment to paying for the Northern Line extension (NLE) that was allowing the already limited amount of affordable housing to be built in the first place. Without the NLE, he insisted, they would never be able to build this number of affordable units. “The important point to note is that the NLE project allows the development density in the district of Nine Elms to nearly double,” he said. “Therefore, without the NLE the density at Battersea would be about half and even if there was a higher level of affordable, say 30 per cent, it would be a percentage of a lower figure and therefore the city wouldn’t get any more affordable than they do now.”

Now the argument is reversed. Because the developer has to pay for the transport infrastructure, they can’t afford to build as much affordable housing. Smart hey?

It’s not entirely hopeless. Wandsworth may yet reject the plan, while the developers say they hope to restore the missing 250 units at the end of the build.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

This is a version of a blog post which originally appeared here.

0800 7318496