The killing of Bin Laden was a cathartic experience for the US, and brought a degree of welcome closure to those bereaved on 9/11.

In the US especially, it was an occasion more for celebration than reflection.

In the aftermath, however, a debate was gathering momentum this week about the implications for the rule of law of the manner of Bin Laden’s demise.

Geoffrey Robertson QC penned a thoughtful piece in the Independent.

He claimed it was ‘absurd’ for former law professor Barack Obama to claim ‘justice was done’ by means of summary execution.

The best way to demystify the Bin Laden myth and debunk his cause would have been for the UN Security Council to try him in The Hague, with international judges providing a fair trial.

Hand-wringing liberalism, some will retort – this is war. Yet, as Robertson recalled, Britain’s government wanted the Nazi leadership executed within hours of capture in 1945, but were restrained by US president Truman.

Justice had to be seen to be done, and was – at Nuremberg. What has changed?

Is it possible, or moral, to safeguard the rule of law while applying it selectively?

And, to paraphrase another commentator, is there any reasonable basis for assuming that due criminal process and the rule of law are anathema to effective counterterrorism?

Hard questions, deserving of an answer.