Hämeen-Anttila Matti Koskenniemi


Professor of international law, Martti Koskenniemi, was asked along with professor of Arabic poetry, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, about the legal and moral ramifications of acting against Osama Bin-Laden in yesterday’s takedown of the terrorist. Some of the more interesting reactions were by Koskenniemi, who in spite of seeing no legal ramifications over the US strike because the US was invited to operate within Pakistan, he rejects the US acting outside international bodies like the UN.

Hämeen-Anttila thinks that the big bad US is just creating boogymen , by creating the fear of international threat that doesn’t exist. He’s wrong of course, any jihadi within reach of his scrawny neck would agree.

Go suck eggs I say, and be thankful the US is a Western state that still has the capability to act unilaterally. Also noteworthy is the fact that leftist clowns such as Koskenniemi and Hämeen-Anttila always hide behind these institutions, as symbols of goodness and virtue, though they are highly corrupted by dictatorships and thugocracies. KGS

NOTE: Folks, this is what we have as “experts” here, trotted out before the cameras every time there’s an international incident involving the US, Israel and the Arab / Muslim world.

H/T: Vasarahammer

YLE: The US has been condemned for an example during the Iraq war, but is there a quiet approval for a role of the US to go in and take care of matters in their own way?

Martti Koskenniemi: “Well, darn, we do not accept this, of course. It is quite intolerable that the US acts this way. But what can we do about it? Politicians, the UN and other international organisations daily have to deal with the fact that the US is a completely impossible international player.”

Video viewable here. (Finnish)

However, Professor of Islamic Studies Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila from the University of Helsinki says that the US chose the practical solution for lack of other options.

“Of course, bringing Osama bin Laden to court would have been a more satisfactory solution from the justice prospective, but it would have been a troublesome one for the US since it would involve a very long trial,” Hämeen-Anttila says.

“On the other hand, the question here is of the war on terror, like the United States says, and then one should follow the rules of war, according to which an opponent gets killed,” Koskenniemi pondered.

According to Koskenniemi, killing bin Laden does not go against the grain of international law in the sense that bin Laden was a wanted criminal and the US was working in cooperation with the government of Pakistan.

“US war propaganda”

Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila considers talk of a wave of retaliatory strikes by terrorists an exaggeration.

“It could be that they will try to do something and some attacks will succeed. I find it hard to believe in any wave of revengeful strikes. Tensions will certainly rise between the fundamentalists and the US, but there are already tensions—I do not believe that it will influence things greatly.”

Hämeen-Anttila says that talk of revenge is no more than US war propaganda.

“The US invariably wants to create an impression that we have a global threat which hangs over us all, and so everyone should support the US. The question here is of creating a continued image of a global threat,” Hämeen-Anttila says.

The Islam researcher believes that bin Laden was one of the top enemies of the US—with him and Saddam Hussein both deposed of, now the turn comes for the Libyan leader Muammar Quaddafi.

“The United States always needs an enemy and always finds one. Quaddafi won’t last long,” Hämeen-Anttila says.

“We need to remember this about Saddam: he was the closest ally of the United States at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. Similarly, Osama bin Laden received support from the CIA when he was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan,” he continues.

US “completely impossible” to deal with

Koskenniemi points out that the US bases its military action in Islamic states on controversial foundations.

“President Bush’s attack on Iraq was widely condemned around the world, with President Halonen also saying that it was illegal. The US has not cared whether anything is lawful or unlawful in the eyes of the UN or the international community,” the professor says.

Koskenniemi does not believe that superior might enables the US to go and arrange thing as it likes.

More here.

NOTE: Here’s another crazy Finnish academic trying to explain last year, just how evil Israel is and how lovely the Hamas.

More on Finnish buffoonery: Finnish Greens Heidi Hautala:

Hautala on killing of Osama Bin Laden: “Terrorism should be an issue of international criminal justice”

Finnish Green MEP Heidi Hautala, chairwoman of the human rights committee in the EU legislature, told EU Observer website that it would have been “much better if he was brought to justice alive.”

“I am sure the discussion will continue, including in the European Parliament, as to why it was needed for him to be killed. The aim should have been not to wage a war against al Qaeda and countries suspected of giving them protection, but to make terrorism an issue of international criminal justice.”

Hautala also said Washington should use the moment to close its detention centre in Cuba where many terrorist suspects have been held for years without trial.

“It is not surprising. Perhaps it is also a moment for the US now after they have achieved this to put their own detention policies up to date with international standards and close Guantanamo once and for all, after it caused so much justified anger against the western world,” she said.

6 Responses

  1. It’s crazy. I never aspected this, but on the Dutch television they actually claimed that Bin Laden was some sort of victim. It’s the world turned upside down.

    1. These people are way beyond the pale. Unreachable drones.

      1. Anyone here ever heard of the word justice? Apparently not since you claim that the people who say that bin Laden should have been brough before justice are simply morons. Well, if you would look at this matter from the international law perspective you would realize that killing an unarmed man without any trial beforehand is simply against law. Ok, the Americans were playing by “the rules of law”,as Mr. Koskenniemi says in that interview, eye for an eye etc., but do you actually think that “justice has been done” as Obama claimed in his speech? What does it solve to kill one man who killed thousands of people, him not even having to take any responsibility of what he did?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.