The news that Osama bin Laden has been killed by US forces (in cooperation with Pakistani intelligence) has just come across our bandwidths and our airwaves.
I’m not even quite sure what to say; this is certainly an historic moment.
I have such mixed feelings. Sure, this was an eight month-long plan, and it sounds like it was meticulously executed. I certainly recognize the tragedy of 9/11, and I would not hesitate to point a finger at bin Laden for his leadership in that event. There is no doubt that Obama has been honest, since his campaign, saying he would take action if the US found bin Laden.
Furthermore, I recognize that as we find our feet in an increasingly insecure world, with the definition of war dramatically changing, we have to approach it in a new way. This opens up a whole new world for us–what will be the reaction? This action, and what will follow in the coming days, months, years, is going to be significant.
But without a trial? Or at least some sort of multilateral agreement. I feel heretical saying it, but what gives us, America, the right to make this decision–to end a life? Even if it is bin Laden.
I know I will likely get reamed for this in the comments, that is if you dare to speak to me any longer.
Photo from here.
Thanks for going and celebrating with the crowds and offering criticism. I’m with you on wishing there had been a trial.
My initial reaction last night was “justice” and not mercy. Sonja, you have brought me back to who I am in your brief blog. Mercy is the only response in ANY situation, because hatred has never in the history of the world been a healing agent. Our globe may have celebrated last night, but the sobriety necessary for healing will descend now. And heal we must.
On one hand, I just want to keep quite and observe what is going on. On the other hand, the celebrations and reactions are so irrational (human, maybe?) I want to say something.
Last night, I was watching the crowds in front of the White House with their flags and crudely-made signs. I started thinking about Libyan rebels on top of Gaddafi, or Saddam’s forces showing off with wreckage of American vehicles… There was no difference.
So, long story short here is my point: When it comes to ‘revenge’, we all want blood. Even Washington, DC – a very liberal, democrat city with extremely educated people in a develop country – is more satisfied when they see blood…What if ‘they’ want blood for Osama, too? When will we stop?
A number of thoughts:
-I am not entirely sure what you mean by a multilateral agreement. Do you mean some kind of sanction by the international community for this action? If that is what you mean, the US probably has it. The UN Security Council after the September 11 attacks adopted a resolution saying that the Council “expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.” The phrase “all necessary steps” is a code word authorizing the use of force, which would no doubt encompass what the US did (although this language would probably have to be considered in context with a few others). Regarding any possible violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan, there are a number of situations in which it has been tacitly recognized that states may respond to attacks from the territory of another state where the state is unable or unwilling to halt the attacks. It is not uncontroversial, but neither is it roundly condemned.
-It would have been completely impossible and unfeasible to somehow bring this action specifically to the UN Security Council for consideration before carrying out the attack, and it looks like the same is true of working with the Pakistani government. If it was ever going to be successful, it probably had to look like this.
-Regarding a trial, under international law bin Laden is probably considered an enemy combatant, not just a criminal, and for that reason all of the rules about trials and extrajudicial killing are different. It is a somewhat gray area that has not been fully agreed upon by the international community.
-On a non-legal moral level, I certainly understand a feeling of ambivalence. It doesn’t exactly feel like a victory for the rule of law. A trial would seem to be appropriate, but I am not so sure when you stop to think about it. There is no real dispute that he was at least largely responsible for what happened, so it would just be a farce in finding him “guilty.” I think it would be just a painful prolonging of the process to go through a big public show trial. Bin Laden would have given impassioned speeches proclaiming himself a martyr to the whole world… a good thing? The US couldn’t even pull off a trial of KSM feasibly. Would it have even been possible to do anything different here?
-Here is an interesting article on the related issue of whether this was an illegal assassination under US domestic law: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/02/was_killing_bin_laden_legal
it is a complicated situation to be sure, I love your line “the definition of war dramatically changing”. I too hope that the rights we “Americans” (said the green card holder) enjoy are not just suspended because he is such a well known target. The full facts and details of the raid will no doubt be top secret for some time, but I too hope that when they are made public we will see that an attempt to capture for the purposes of trial was plan A, and the killing was plan B in the event that he was fleeing the scene or something of this nature.
Here’s hoping everyone feels conflicted, and thinks hard before celebrating this human’s death
I think a trial assumes that he could’ve been taken into custody without first killing others or himself. From what I’ve heard, he engaged in a gunfight with the special forces, using human shields to resist capture. To me, it sounds doubtful that he could have been taken alive given the circumstances. The special forces team was not against taking him alive upon entering the compound, from a news report I heard at least.
I don’t find joy or celebration in his death, but I just wonder if a trial could have been possible. I also can’t say I will mourn his loss.