Internet Statement 2011-16




"Justice" using mafia's methods?
          The execution of Osama Bin Laden by the current U.S. government

Maria Weiß, 8.5.2011  

There are more and more details coming out now about the execution of bin Laden. If you had had the impression since the beginning that in principle jungle methods are being applied by the US government and the secret services taking part, now it is continuously shown that the whole affair has been some kind of mafia reminding execution commando. This having been in agreement with the Pakistani government is denied decisively by the Pakistani side and the US government themselves declare without shame that they had made informed these about their plan not considering their agreement. Thus it is very clear that this is a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan. This is very obvious and carries a demonstrative character in consideration of the US government being able to afford, any time and when they want, in other countries not caring about sovereign or not, not consideration agreement of the relevant government, to carry out such executions. And this a very severe issue. Whatever might support to eliminate this person in this concrete case, it would have been better surely to get him to court. Well, this might have been disadvantageous under some circumstances, namely those that the person might have talked and might have uncovered facts to what extent the US secret services up to the government are involved in this matter of Nine-eleven. However, in this way it seems they can escape this point  for the moment.


Of course, you can understand the relatives of those people having been killed at the attack of the 11th September 2001. There is no doubt. Notwithstanding, we have to say: this method is not right. And it is neither right that the government of a super power executes self-justice. This is no principle you can tolerate. And secret services do not simply do this clandestinely, but it happens frankly and is not only justified fully by the highest representative of this super power, the USA, but is even supervised demonstratively in a public video conference. The photos about it published in many newspapers tell their own tale.


Where is this to lead? Is self-justice to be carried out all over the world in the future? Also in the case of Gaddafi and other head of states or representatives? Even if some people have not committed so many crimes yet maybe, this does not work. That is no principle.


What happens to a single person, for example, whose relative has been murdered and who ventures to use this principle, any common civilian, who takes this liberty? He will go to court himself and will have to justify himself there and maybe will be suited for homicide under extenuating circumstances.


So-called "Justice has been done". This might be the case if the relevant had been brought to trial of the USA and been sentenced to death. Yet, not in this case. Here we have an act of a jungle principle having been set on stage openly before the whole world under the motto "Yes we can". One has to put a stop to this. Namely before any further actions of this kind occur.


In this particular case the organs of UNO might really be addressed to take according measures. And it is absolutely right that this also applies to the Gaddafi family. Such practices, especially if they are paraded openly and justified, have to be stopped immediately. In a certain sense Obama in doing this even tops the policy of Bush. 



Why no trial?



Even the Nazi mass murderers (or at least many of them) have been made ​​a trial that was at the end the death sentence and its execution. What would have the public at that time said that when here people had acted with the same methodology as the present government of the USA? At that time there were undoubtedly millions of families of the countless people murdered by the Nazis, and might probably have mustered  a  certain degree of understanding. It would have at the time alleged representatives of freedom and democracy badly stood face to act as criticised above. Finally, then one might ask whether those "judges" may not be so much different in nature to the Nazis.


What then opposed, however, to provide that person, for example, in the U.S. court? He might have been condemned to death. In the U.S., the death penalty exists and I can not even say that that would not have been justified, provided the debt is clearly demonstrated. It may be that some people think that this is long since shown by the observations that have been given by this man, but that is not enough. An important reason why this has not happened is certainly the one that a process always involves the danger maybe to be uncomfortable to some other people by bringing things to light that should be considered strictly confidential. This is an essential, although perhaps not the only reason why this is happening, apart from the obviously intentional provocative character the whole thing has considering the way it was implemented.


The political affiliations. Why do they act like that? It is clear that certainly a lot of people who are in any way Islamic or sympathise with such forces, are provoked by that. And that is probably supposed to happen. What will you at? Is the intention, in effect, that in the Middle East, where the situation threatens to develop means to the delight of the U.S. imperialists, once again peoples are chased against each other? For example, Iran against Saudi Arabia and vice versa, by using certain differences in religious orientation, and simultaneously starting such a provocation? This is supported by some facts.


We must hold in this context, time and again that something has been necessary in no way because it could have been passed sentence on an entirely legal manner and in accordance with penalties have enacted also something that would have satisfied the matter enough. But no, this one has not been done, so the question is: why?


When you see that the Conservatives do now openly applaud and even claim  the whole thing for themselves, while the same bring in their own brutal methods of torture  in the field who had allegedly contributed to the fact that this person was taken, which is completely absurd, then you know for sure what it amounts  to. The so-called neo-cons are all the time again on the war, in the Middle East, and indeed in some contrast to Obama, who behaves as a bit more cautious, however, this is the fact that the Democrats pursue other plans. To this end we have already stated on several occasions.


The more painful is that the Federal Chancellor Merkel had to do nothing more urgent than to pay on the spot this obvious hit squad action their outright approval, which itself has led to criticism in ranks of the ruling party and also by other people in this country. That was done by not a single other government, not even the British, which is otherwise quite more inclined to make such a thing, or Sarkozy, who is recently also prone to certain excesses. This has eben been to much to others what Merkel has uttered there. Hastily she jumped at this, at best, without looking closely. You really get sick by so much submissiveness....


The story, supposedly not having known where this person is located and only since August of last year - but in other respects an interesting time - having got information is really more than incredible. The CIA is involved in Pakistan so deeply that this has become too much even to Pakistani authorities  sometimes. The property, which was shown, shines not just by stealth. Moreover, it is in close proximity to Pakistan's military bases, such as an academy. What kind of fairy tales are they still up to produce?

How is such a something like that to be answered? It can only be answered when all the forces in the world that are revolutionary and progressive minded realise what kind of enemy we are dealing with - and this is of course not only the U.S. government, but everything that is behind, namely the international financial capital, and in general the whole system of international exploitation, the reaction at all, and that this is as it were, in some ways just a fight to the death record you must undertake. Only the masses of people all over the world can bring these enemies to case, not some single people who think they can change the situation by any individual terrorist attacks or otherwise. This does not work, that benefits only the enemy exactly, that must be recognised, and is provoked precisely through such actions as have now been experienced. This is completely unique. They can deny as often as they want, that speaks its own language and is to do so.


Why does such a measure have no deterrent effect? It cannot have it. Deterrence is only carried by something that meets the people behind the staging of such things. Yet, this is avoid in this particular case, and supposed to obviously.


History does not develop by the killing of individual people. History unfolds neither by actions of the Mafia, even if it sits in the government. History unfolds through the masses of the people, by what they do, how far they are moving forward, that's the right thing. This approach, however, as has taken place, itself awakes even reactionary instincts.


Regardless of whatever was true about this massacre action and what not, that's not what matters. The important thing is the demonstration that is done here by the part of the U.S. imperialists. And they will continue to do so. They have already announced this. Until they have all cashed Pakistan and snatched the nuclear weapons, apart from the fact that this country is of extraordinary importance as a strategic position towards China and also Russia and India.


It can be observed at all the trend that the current U.S. government decreasingly treats international law as a benchmark for itself, but on the contrary, drastic breaks occur. Applying "double standards" is also observed here. What would the same forces have shouted probably  if another country such as Russia, had dealt like this? You do not need not a lot of imagination. However, one wonders where their opinion on these actions is left at the moment.


The Russian government, which in this context is usually not exactly of squeamish exercise, in fact, applies remarkable restraint and barricaded themselves behind more or less critical comments from Central and South American countries. This is probably speculation that Pakistan may be inclined due to the actions of the United States to find support by them in the face of tougher differences to the previous "power base" USA. Similar messages from Central and South Asia are already available. The "Al-Qaeda-card" is played by the various imperialist powers alternately. Before the invasion of the (then) Soviet superpower in Afghanistan in late 1979/beginning 1980 had it been a concern of the (also  led by the Democratic Party), U.S. Government, by taunts and support of the Islamists in Afghanistan, to "suggest" the Soviet Union's invasion (see the Brzezinski interview, 13.6.1997, on the Internet Statement 2007-88 from Nov. 07 partly translated as shown), who says that it did not work the other way around today? In this context also China is a potential prospect.


Also in the behaviour against Libya it can be very well observed. Secretary Clinton suggested recently that accounts in the USA now "frozen" assets of the Libyan government should be freed and should be made available for the so called opposition. That's not for the U.S. government! Others have trumpeted in the same horn, but a little more reserved. For example, the British government is more cautious and also the German, the foreign minister has explained that the disposition of those assets alone is for the Libyan people and not abroad, as he put it. It is really the principle of jungle, which has been shown all over the brutality of this bin Laden execution, which obviously seems to be continued in other areas. This is a blatant undermining at all between state law taking place here. And it is clear that this has to be stopped absolutely.


This trend must be fought. It is out of question that this continues to prevail here because this is the path that the U.S. imperialists late last year set out in its new military design, namely to let it come to wars between different states, even larger ones out of which they themselves hope to extricate from their own problems to pull at the end but again the profit and save the system as a whole. The chances are however not the best.


To ask again explicitly clear here: Our organisation is an outspoken opponent of any kind of so-called suicide bombings or other actions based on kamikaze because of the mass hostile character directed against the masses. We have documented that in many statements in the past and we continue to base ourselves on that.  What happens here on the part of the U.S. government is something else though. This is also directed against the masses, and in a very blatant way. What is to be effected by this type of approach? Is it to actually decrease  the attacks? That will surely not do so. On the contrary, these types of actions are more suited to provoke people so much that something will happen just again. Especially since both the present as well as  especially the previous US administration under Bush in a number of points themselves exposed to suspicion to be also behind these acts, including Nine-Eleven, to have at least encouraged them. A number of authors have dealt with this issue and raised a whole series of questions that are still not answered. (See also our related Internet statements, so in 2001, IS 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, or 2002-03, 2003-05, 2004-22, 2002-69, 2005-07, 2007-88, 2008 - 50, 2010-14)

In our view, these attacks were carried out in very rare cases in isolation, but were always at least objectively in relation to the projects of certain reactionary forces to suppress the masses and to oppose the progress of the masses. Naturally this applies to all reactionary forces in the world. And it goes without saying that such counter-revolutionary and anti-mass actions useful to the reactionaries and counter-revolution in the world must be punished. However, not in the form of self-appointed, infringing any rights and the Mafia reminiscent methods such as having been performed above, the bargain of forces that are even suspected to be plugged themselves in behind the actions of the so "punished" if not to be at least partly the actual perpetrators and instigators of this, though they, as already indicated, are by no means the only ones.


It is quite a popular method to play off the rival Islamist card against the contrahent and competitor. We can observe that quite well in the temporal positioning of most attacks. Namely, they always have a political purpose. It can be argued that in this case the inner structure of the enemy was again penetrated and here and there the pressure on the current U.S. government has been reinforced, as was to be already observed in the case of Libya. By the way, that Libya is such a focal point in the Middle East, such a target where certain forces said they would absolutely have to be active there, is not least because there has developed in recent years in the nuclear field some co-operation with Pakistan and also avowedly scientific material has gone back and forth, or transmitted, having offset the U.S. and possibly other powers in turmoil. The true sovereignty of Pakistan, or what is left of it, if at all, shows  among other things in this drastic action by the United States.


The U.S. give as a reason for its action in particular that they  could have been sure of Pakistani authorities up to the military and in particular of Pakistan's ISI any more. The latter has perhaps been sold elsewhere since long? This is quite possible and not just since yesterday. There are enough candidates for a new mentorship, especially as in Pakistan ever more representatives of the ruling class are not particularly happy  with the close link to Islamic forces and want to get away from it. As Pakistan is economically weak, however, and is dominated by forces strongly exploding within the population, the possibilities on their own to accomplish a detachment are limited. Applications of other foreign powers in this direction would not be hopeless from the outset, quite to the contrary. One should remember in this connection that about three years ago, in late 2007, there was an effort in Pakistan to achieve a different government at least formally more open to non-Islamist and more democratic developments, which failed as the only candidate in this direction, Benazir Bhutto, shortly before the elections fell victim to an attack, where probably Islamist forces up into government circles had their fingers in the game. It would therefore be also currently by no means improbable, and quite attractive to foreign intelligence agencies that are interested in a solution of the country from the clutches of the United States to ally themselves with just these Islamist forces to put the United States over on this  in due course, especially to prevent a development, as happens now in the Middle East in this part of the world if possible.


(Translation of the German original)