“From the perspective of process, justice has not been done; bin Laden did not get a fair trial” – OBL did not get ANY trial – the question presupposes that a trial is always possible, when in some circumstances it may not be.

Ignoring the concept of a military context (where different conditions apply) makes your question of academic rather than practical value?

a&e that’s not much of an objection, imho. he’s not presupposing or ignoring anything, merely asserting that from a “process” view of justice, Bin Laden didn’t receive it. You don’t really dispute that, you just suggest some reasons why he didn’t receive process justice. The point of the OP – asking why the usual left/right split in attitudes towards process/outcome has reversed in this case – stands. as far as I can see.

I think the dichotomy between “process” and “outcome” is a false one. For the left process and outcome are, like ends and means, dialectically related. The formal equality espoused by rightists is normatively unacceptable from a leftist perspective because it negates the structural forces that constrain individual agency. This observation was stated most forcefully by Anatole France when he said “[t]he law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Real substantive equality of process (as opposed to abstract formal equality of process) cannot exist unless some structural conditions that prevent equality of outcome are tackled to some degree. There is no normative formula here, but there is acknowledgement of the dialectic between structure and agency that needs to be addressed.

With regard to the question of justice, it depends whether we are viewing the Bin Laden example narrowly or more broadly. On an individual legal basis we might say that Bin Laden got his just deserts given the heinous acts he had perpetrated on the basis of “rough justice” rather than legal justice (though I think the question of which legal paradigm[jus ad bellum, International Humanitarian Law or International Human Rights Law] is deployed here is an important one). On the broader question of whether justice has been done, I suspect the reason many leftists are not whooping and cheering like the Yank Frat Boy Filth are doing might be because they are viewing the killing within the context of a bloody war launched by U.S imperialism, which it should be remembered is one of the most blood stained political agencies for the last 60 years. I guess it’s comparable to a mafia don taking out some small time rival gangster. The gangster may have deserved his outcome, but justice has many more components to it than mere retribution.

This isn’t a paradox – it is merely a claim that any left-winger who holds a view of justice that you don’t actually articulate cannot consistently complain that Osama was killed without a trial.

Let’s imagine left-wingers do rejected process-based views of justice. There are still several different views they could hold.

For instance, they could reject the claim that just processes necessarily lead to a just outcome without rejecting the claim that just outcomes require just processes – and so they could say that Osama’s death wasn’t just because it wasn’t the result of just processes (even though a just process, such as a trial, wouldn’t necessarily have led to a just outcome).

Alternatively, if they do also reject the claim that just outcomes require just processes, it’s still open to them to deny that the execution of another human being can ever be justified. Or they can claim that a trial is not a process leading to an outcome, but is itself partially constitutive of a just outcome. Or they can claim that even if Osama’s death was just, it harms justice overall because it undermines institutions that promote just outcomes.

He was tried in absentia wasn’t he?

Not for 9/11 as the FBI never had any evidence, but for attacks that pre dated that.

#5

Yes this is true isn’t it (?) – for “al-Qa’ida’s earlier attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the attack on the US barracks in Dhahran.”

3

come again? “dialectically related”?

even if you think what passes as “fair process” isn’t at all fair, you can still differentiate between just processes and just outcomes. I don’t think being on “the left” requires one to deny any such distinction exists.

I think justice isn’t the issue.

On the right, the unfettered free market, and fighting with the bad guys to the bitter end, are both very popular processes.

The concerns on the left that I’ve read (and McArdle’s on the right) are not about procedure or outcome, but simply reflect an uneasiness about whether wild celebration is an appropriate emotional response to anyone’s death.

@ Luis

To say that two things are dialectically related is to say they have an inner relationship, that two things are co-constitutive, that they define each other so that you cannot understand one without the other. Of course we can draw a distinction between process and outcome but such a distinction has a purely didactic value since the justice of a process has bearing on the justness of the outcome and vice versa. Just to give an example: could a process ever be considered “just” if its outcome was systemic and systematic inequality between people of different races? Conversely, could a process that sought to achieve the outcome of racial inequality be just if it was achieved by a brutal campaign of violence directed against the advantaged racial group? In both instances the observation holds true that means condition ends and ends condition means.

* that should have read “the outcome of racial equality” obv

[2] so let me get this straight – reactions to politically motivated executions are largely determined along a left/right axis, well possibly?

And if both constituencies had been asked, are you a ‘process’, or ‘outcome’ sort of person (when it came to the legal niceties of said killing) their answers would have fallen neatly along similar politically inspired divisions (even assuming they knew what it meant) – I must admit I am less sure about this type of simplistic distinction.

Let’s at least start by acknowledging that the views of the ‘left’ or ‘right’ cannot always be represented in such homogenous terms, not least because the premise of a ‘process’ or ‘outcome’ based mindset is rendered virtually meaningless without information about contextualising factors, such as conditions of war, that some believed were responsible for OBL’s take down?

Have to say OP thats probably the most simple yet level headed distinction between the economic positions of left and right ive ever seen.

As for UBL/OBL i have no opinion on his death, only that he bankrolled an extremely unpleasant ideology, and its best that he no longer does so. As for his involvement in 9/11, i thought he had consistently denied being involved?

My grandfather served in WW1 and my Dad in WW2. Neither talked about what happened or what they did or how many Germans they killed. You just didn’t. But clearly they did because of where they served and the medals they won. People get killed in wars. That’s what happens. Soldiers and commanders are judge, jury and executioner. There are no trials or due process. It’s kill or be killed.

Al Quada declared war on the US if not in writing or verbally by its actions on 9/11. No cessation or cease fire has ever been declared and therefore bin Laden was an enemy combatant and killed in action. So quit agonising. bin Laden was a nasty evil murderer.

One should ask what purpose the death of Bin Laden served. Revenge is justice for some people, the prevention of further crimes may morally justify it for others. What due process was used in his absence seems questionable, more like victor’s justice than anything normally acceptable in a civilised court of law.

This was a nasty, bloodthirsty little operation that was never likely to capture Bin Laden for trial, perhaps never intended to in case he used it to promote his ideology.

The recognition of the injustices suffered by many who sympathise with his radicalism and real efforts to bring social and political reform to their countries would be a more effective counter to his terrorism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaAQsxAQYHg

But many on the right take a process-based view. This is summed up by Nozick’s famous dictum “whatever arises by just means is itself just.” And it was also expressed by Hayek:

The manner in which the benefits and burdens are apportioned by the market mechanism would in many instances have to be regarded as very unjust if it were the result of a deliberate allocation to particular people. But this is not the case. Those shares are the outcome of a process the effect of which on particular people was neither intended nor foreseen by anyone. (Law, Legislation and Liberty vol II p64)

There seems to be an elementary misunderstanding in this post. What Hayek is referring to is not a process in the same sense as “due process”, but the accidental outcome of social forces beyond the control or even the comprehension of people. That is the polar opposite of what is understood by the term “due process”, ie. the normal and just workings of the legal system.

An analogy: both animal husbandry and the natural process of evolution can lead to new species being created, but they are polar opposites in the sense that the former is a conscious activity performed by individuals with a specific goal in mind, while the latter is a product of the laws of nature and is an unconscious process tending towards no specific, preconceived goal.

This should be obvious and it’s rather sly of Chris Dillow to conflate these two different notions of “process”.

Cherub

> The recognition of the injustices suffered by many who sympathise with his radicalism

Trying tounwrap this – do you think that all/most/some of those who sympathise with Al Qaida do so because of what they personally have suffered?

OBL himself didn’t suffer due to the West, before he embarked on his course, tho did he?

> real efforts to bring social and political reform to their countries would be a more effective counter to his terrorism

Are you sure that the majority of say Afghanis/ Pakistanis /Saudis etc want a ‘social + political reform’ that we on LC would recognise as one based on equality + liberal democractic principles?

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who is sorry that Osama is dead, most that I know who take the “he should have been taken alive and put on trial if possible”* line have done so because they’re of the opinion that if the law is disregarded for the worst of us, then it can easily be disregarded for any of us. Protect the Devil with the law to protect yourself, so to speak.

The worst argument against that position I’ve seen so far is that any trial would have cost a lot of money, which can be ill afforded. Quite what convinced them that justice should only be done when affordable I don’t know.

*Chances are it wasn’t possible.

#23

The speaker of the Sudanese parliament described him yesterday as a “holy fighter”, while MPs from the ruling NCP party shouted “Martyr, Martyr”, according to Sudan Tribune newspaper today. The article points out that this is a muted response from a country that’s hoping to be lifted from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism very soon.

(I’m going to avoid the question) I’m not sure of the relevance of “justice” in the sense of trying criminals (justice is relevant in the moral sense). AIUI, the USA and bin Laden / al Qaeda agreed on one thing: they are at war. As a/the leader of al Qaeda he was a legitimate military target. Now he’s dead.

@17 Just Visiting

You ask, “Trying tounwrap this – do you think that all/most/some of those who sympathise with Al Qaida do so because of what they personally have suffered?”

Don’t you? People will sympathise for all sorts of reasons, like any radical group.

“Are you sure that the majority of say Afghanis/ Pakistanis /Saudis etc want a ‘social + political reform’ that we on LC would recognise as one based on equality + liberal democractic principles?”

You might easily have asked that of the Egyptians, Tunisians, Syrians, Bahrainis… before the Arab Spring.

“Justice” requires both process (fair trial) and outcome (proportionate sentence).

You can and frequently do have one without the other, alas.

Reports in this morning’s news say that Bin Laden was unarmed. It sounds increasingly like summary execution.

Steven Poole on justice.

left not liberal

I don’t think anybody would deny that you wouldn’t call a process just unless it (tended to) lead to outcomes that are also considered just, but that doesn’t mean you can only call a process just if it has led to just outcome or that an outcome can only be called just if it stemmed from a just process. There’s room for one without the other, or at least emphasis on different aspects.

Consider two people trading on a desert island. Suppose that terms of trade are struck that are strongly advantageous to one party, but that nobody mislead anybody and the deal was voluntary. Perhaps the one party just made an opportunistic first offer, which was accepted by the other who failed to think things through. The OP suggests right wingers would tend to think that situation was OK because they think the process was sufficient for justice to have been done, and left-wingers might think an injustice has been committed. Conversely, if a third party appeared and imposed by force a deal that involved equal costs and benefits to each party, the left/right perspective might flip.

I don’t think that the observation that ideas of just process and just outcome are related (“conditioned” on each other, as you put it) means that you have to somehow deny that people can see things along different lines.

[I am still suffering from the feeling I speak a slightly different language to you: "inner relationship" "co-constituitive"?]

America justice system is not the greatest is it, and trial by gun is often thought best, no wonder people like Bin Laden will always rise up.

The more I see and hear justice was dispensed at the end of a rifle or pistol , no trial no justice quick clean leave no bits to hang over Obama rise up the polls and the election process.

To put these issues into the British context, why not examine the way the British Army’s shoot to kill policy in NI and actions in Gibralter — where three IRA members were executied in 1988 – were supported or critqued at the time? Looking at the way UK government courts and news media (and popular opinion) handled the event and responded to the European Court’s for Human Rights’ judgments is not only of hostoric interest……..

The results of the Stalker inquiry have yet (to my knowledge) been made public.
The use and impact of internment without trial and torture in NI are often alluded to, but not really analysed in current debates – sort of airbrushed from history except to make occasional general points.

“”"Reports in this morning’s news say that Bin Laden was unarmed. It sounds increasingly like summary execution”"”

GOOD! You apologist turd.

Boo hoo. They shot Bin Ladin. Oh no! You cunts really hate the fact he’s not still alive and well don”t you!

Yeah…so much better to have him be the world’s biggest celebrity prisoner for countless months and months until eventually he has a chance (at American taxpayer’s expense) to grandstand and preach at a show trial.
And then a HUGE wait again, more expense again, more infamy again, before they (hopefully, maybe, who can say) execute him and make him an even bigger hero.

No…Just blow the medieval sack of shit’s murdering barbaric Islamist brains out and have done with it!

And if quisling Islamist fanboys don’t like it…fucking tough!
Feel free to take up arms against the eeeeeevil American’s in Afghnistan if you fell that sad for Bin Ladin. No one will miss you and we’ll all have another party when they deal with you too.

The Sun said it best;

“BIN BAGGED”…classic. Wonderful.

For comparison, try this account of the fatal shooting of Jack Ashley in the course of a Police raid on his flat in St Leonards, East Sussex, on the morning of 15 January 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ashley

In due course and following the advice of the Home Secretary at the time, the chief constable of East Sussex resigned.

@ Luis, in your example the unjust outcome (the disadvantaged contractual position) could still not be understood as unjust in the absence of some discerning of an unjust process that led to it imo. Personally i find concepts of “voluntariness” and “consent” rather problematic on the whole, but for the sake of argument I’ll accept your scenario in which a contract is made entirely consensually, both parties have equal bargaining power and there is full access to information by both parties.

In your scenario it could still be argued that the opportunism of party A amounted to an injustice (leftists generally wouldnt subscribe to rational choice theory as a basis for justice).But for the sake of argument again let’s assume A did not act opportunistically but rather inadvertently offered B a disadvantagous contract and B recklessly or negligently accepted it. So far no injustice. Suppose then at some later point B realises that he is unfairly disadvantaged and seeks rectification of that disadvantage but is unable to because the actions of others (either A, a third party or society) prevent him from doing so. It is at this stage that the process has become injust (the attempt at renegotiation is part of the process) and *at the same time* the outcome is also unjust because B now has no recourse to remedy the unjust process which has produced the unjust outcome.

This is what I meant about the “inner relationship” of ends and means – they are not only related to each other – they are one and same thing. Although we can seperate them for analytical purposes, in reality they cannot be organically seperated. The deontological right* (Nozeck and to a lesser extent Hyak) make the distinction and choose process over outcomes, means over ends, nomocracy over teleocracy and so on. Leftists should not imo merely invert their arguments and choose ends over means but rather should challenge the seperation of ends and means as a false dichotomy.

* note, other neo-liberals prefer to justify their ideology on utilitarian grounds – “invisible hand” “rising tide” “trickle down economics” and so on

lnl

Leftists should not imo merely invert their arguments and choose ends over means but rather should challenge the seperation of ends and means as a false dichotomy.

it’s not clear to me what that means. I hadn’t introduced time into my little analogy, but you did (and reasonably so). So let’s say the two parties struck a year-long contract, after which time they were free to renegotiate, but the party with the advantageous initial deal is now much better off, in a stronger bargaining position, and is able to stay better off forever.

now say you encounter a right-winger who calls this inequitable situation just, because they think the process that produced it was fine (no right-winger would ever agree that equality of bargaining power is a prerequisite for a just bargaining process), and you want to “challenge the seperation of ends and means as a false dichotomy”. So what do you do? Does that mean you claim the situation isn’t just because you think the outcome isn’t just? That would just mean you are emphasising an outcome based idea of justice, like the OP suggests left-wingers do. Or would you dispute that the process was a just one? It’s always possible to argue the a process is not just. afaics both of those objections can be made, but I don’t understand what they have to do with inner relationships and false dichotomies.

I don’t understand what you are actually claiming. Are you simply saying that a just situation requires both a just process and a just outcome, and that as soon as you regard an outcome as unjust that means the process that led to it was too, and that as soon as you regard a process as unjust any outcome it produces must be too? How does that help? You are still left with some people who would argue my hypothetical situation is just because they think the process was (so by your “false dichotomy” logic they must claim that outcome is too) and others who would call my hypothetical situation unjust because they think the outcome is (so by your logic must claim that the process is too).

In your example, B is prevented from renegotiating (and I presume not just because B voluntarily signed a binding contract) and you say at this point the process is unjust *and* the outcome is too. I don’t see how that differs from simply calling the situation unjust on the basis the process is unjust (B is prevented from renegotiation) – you’re not appealing to some characteristic of the outcome (i.e. that is inequitable) you are appealing to process.

What the OP seems to fail to take into consideration is the political realities. The ‘right’ is currently in government and the current policy of the UK government appears to be to back whatever the US does. As the opposition while the ‘left’ can’t be seen to be disagreeing with the US they also don’t want to be seen as agreeing with the ‘right’.

In other words I think this is less about policy and more about alliances.

But what of the cancer that America, like all Western societies, is having to put up with thanks to PC folly?

While you weep fetid tears for a mad dog rightfully put down…you should be weeping for the atrocity his Western embedded followers carry out;

Man sentenced to life for killing 5 family members
Prosecutors say he was angry they wouldn’t convert to Islam.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quintuple-murder-sentence-20110504,0,1670749.story

Man kills stepdaughter for not honoring Muslim religion.

http://www.wdam.com/story/14567778/man-kills-stepdaughter-for-not-honoring-muslim-religion

There seem to be a lot of trolls suddenly. Has some CiF forum closed?

Yes…All are trolls who point out the truth.

You are a tragic and grossly illiberal figure Cherub. I laugh at you, in bitter disgust.

There seem to be a lot of trolls suddenly

Or is it the same person?

@36 ukliberty

Overwhelmingly likely; the randomness of their profile name generator can be quite entertaining tho… the sweary incoherence of the new crop of trolls strongly suggests a single pen though.

It had crossed my mind too.

@ 35 random troll

“Yes…All are trolls who point out the truth.”

Don’t flatter yourself; you’re not even very entertaining as trolls go, and certainly less than articulate. Your conception of truth and actual truth are circles which never intersect in the Venn diagram of life.

@ 35 Sam’s big nose

“Yes…All are trolls who point out the truth.”

No, no, that’s not what “troll” means at all. If you don’t want to remain confused you should look it up.

“You are a tragic and grossly illiberal figure Cherub. I laugh at you, in bitter disgust.”

Illiberal? Coming from someone who thinks Islam is a “cancer” we have to suffer due to “PC folly”? If you think being liberal is “folly”, why are you (inaccurately) complaining about someone else being illiberal? Oh wait, it’s because you’re a moronic troll who can’t tie his own shoelaces.

@ ukliberty

“Or is it the same person?”

Given that Sam is repeating the theme of “proper liberals hate Muslims”, so beloved of local troll Davey Boy, I suspect you’re right. I guess spamming this forum is what he does between peering suspiciously out of his curtains at brown people and weeping because he has no friends.

Since the Left are notoriously beureaucratic it doesnt follow at all that they are anti-process. Communist states processed millions of people to death.

@ 33 Sam the spam

Did you miss Trolling 101 then? Can’t you at least TRY and come up with something more coherent for us to point and laugh at? I honestly think LC deserves a better class of troll you know…. so do try and make more of an effort.

The actions of one crazed convert to Islam in Illinois do nothing to advance your case, nor do the action of the other individual in the USA.

I can’t see anything to suggest either case has any connection to OBL, so they can hardly be considered his embedded followers. Some Muslims in western countries do bad things. Some Christians do bad things. Some atheists do bad things.

Their faith or lack thereof doesn’t allow anyone to draw conclusions about the wonky overall thesis you have that islam and it’s followers are a monolithic entity with a single agenda. It’s as unconvincing a line as that pedalled by those who think the Protocols of the elders of Zion is real.

As for my tears (fetid or not) about the death of OBL, there are none. I’d actually have preferred to see him taken alive, but can see how it would have been difficult to achieve. He was involved in a war by his own admission; I for one have no qualms about the legality of having him killed. Do carry on to insist the “everyone” you identify as of the left *must* adhere to your voodoo interpretation of history, and share the same uniform views.

Your manichaean view of

oops….cont of 43

Your manichaean view of large groups, whether Muslims, lefties, liberals etc suggest that you lack experience and empathy. Perhaps you should ask your handlers to let you out more often into the real world. If your medication allows it, and you aren’t a danger to yourself and others of course, you might find the complexities of the real world refreshing after the padded white room with one small window.

Osama, like Saddam, was a former US ally, and recipient of much US largesse, who ‘turned bad’.

Not trying him in a court has the advantage to the US of avoiding the use of potentially embarrassing information in his defence. Rather like Saddam, who was quickly hanged on a relatively ‘minor’ charge.

Why should Bin Laden have received due process? War is extra-judicial by definition.

For comparison, try this account of the fatal shooting of Jack Ashley in the course of a Police raid on his flat in St Leonards, East Sussex, on 15 January 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ashley

And the fatal shooting of three IRA operatives on active service in Gibraltar in 1988:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/7/newsid_2516000/2516155.stm

vimothy,

Why should Bin Laden have received due process? War is extra-judicial by definition.

I’m inclined to agree. One can feel ‘a sense of justice’ but there is no justice here in the sense of everyday criminal law – it’s inapplicable.

All the comments seem to be presuposing that Bin Laden should have received some kind of trial, and therefore his death was unjust. (On a related note, I even saw an article in the Guardian that described it as “murder”, which is ludicrous). Am I being fair in this characterisation?

@48 Yet the flaw is that we have several heads of state (or thereabouts) all proclaiming this as “justice”. Then reiterating all the atrocities he oversaw without having to prove any of it.

If they’d just left it to the bare facts I doubt I’d have any problem with it; but they just had to ‘big it up’.

^No justice in the sense of criminal law, but this was obviously just in the pedestrian sense of the word.

@51 And if this had been a quote from some guy in the street or military general I’d have accepted that; but this was from the heads of countries who should damn well know better.

That’s a non sequitur. No one expects combatants in an armed conflict to get due process, so “justice” in this context obviously doesn’t refer to that.

@53 – As I said – someone in the street or a military general. Use of this word, that I think we’ve all agreed on can have two meanings, by people involved in the law making process should have been avoided.

FlipC,

@48 Yet the flaw is that we have several heads of state (or thereabouts) all proclaiming this as “justice”. Then reiterating all the atrocities he oversaw without having to prove any of it.

If they’d just left it to the bare facts I doubt I’d have any problem with it; but they just had to ‘big it up’.

I’m inclined to agree.

EC #27, you clearly know nothing of the things you talk about (nor can you spell many of them). Nobody was “executed” in Gibraltar (with an ‘a’), you seem to forget that the three were actively engaged in a conspiracy to commit mass murder. They were in the process of carrying out preparatory acts which if left unchecked would have resulted in the deaths of dozens. Next to the chosen blast area is a school, a senior citizen’s home and a library. Also there would have been a large number of tourists watching the event. The IRA three were planning, and in the process of carrying out, mass murder. If when challenged by the SAS they had kept stock still without moving they would still be alive.

I much preferred reading of the deaths of the IRA three in the newspapers than I would have liked to read of the deaths of dozens of school children, senior citizens & tourists.

They brought it upon themselves.