The Murder of Osama bin Laden

The Polemicist

by Michael House

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

—Martin Luther King, Jr.

LONDON England—(Weekly Hubris)—(5/16/11)—So, Osama Bin Laden has been the victim of a hit squad and now sleeps with the fishes, like a Mafia victim.

Even the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany—murderers not of thousands but of millions—were given Due Process at Nuremberg before being consigned to the gallows. Even Saddam Hussein was given a trial.

The obscene celebrations of elements of the American people make their country less safe and leave its reputation sullied.

Hamlet failed to kill Claudius, the murderer of his father, when he found his uncle at prayer, because Claudius would then have gone to heaven. Hamlet did not want justice. He wanted revenge. And in the end, his vindictiveness killed him.

This appears to have been murder pure and simple. Yet again, the United States preaches the Rule of Law to the rest of the world while applying the law of the jungle to its enemies.

And yet, and yet . . . was it wrong? Can the end justify the means in “appropriate” cases? The above sentiments may suggest that I have found this an easy issue. But it is morally complex.

The arguments against are clear and obvious. What are the arguments in favor of what the US did?

I think they are as follows (but I don’t vouch for any of them):

1. The planners were entitled to believe that Osama would not have been prepared to be taken alive. He may have been wearing an explosive device to enable him to take his captors with him. It was a chance they could not take. At the very least, they would have expected him to be armed. Why should the Seals risk their lives to preserve his?
2. A trial would have been a long and protracted process. Bin Laden would have been the focus and rallying point for Islamic extremists.
3. Attempts would have been made to force his release. Innocent people would have been kidnapped and killed if the authorities refused to release him.
4. The death of Bin Laden makes Obama’s re-election far more likely. If he is re-elected, rather than some right-wing Republican fruitcake, many lives may be saved—both Americans, because the health reforms will stand, and non-Americans, because illegal foreign wars are less likely (although the Osama episode weakens this point). It is a utilitarian argument based on the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham—the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
5. Bin Laden was not a criminal being arrested, but a soldier in an army at war with America. Unless he specifically surrendered, killing him was legitimate.
6. The world is a better place without him.

The insensitivity of calling the operation “Geronimo” is quite breathtaking. How Obama allowed this is incredible. He must know how Native Americans were devastated, cheated and massacred by “civilized” settlers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo). His own relatives in Kenya were similarly oppressed by white settlers. I would have expected better from the President.

The White House would have done better to get its story straight before broadcasting it to the world. It is not clear whether Obama, watching the web-cam, actually witnessed the death of Bin Laden. If he did, he lied to the world about what occurred.

The primary argument against this apparent murder is that the United States sinks to the level of the terrorists. If it ever had the right to claim the moral high ground, it has undoubtedly forfeited that right. Terrorism cannot be fought with terrorism. Espousing “Western values” and then abandoning them when it suits, looks to the world like hypocrisy.

A martyr has been created. On trial, the semi-mythical monster Bin Laden would have been reduced to a seedy, elderly man with a straggly beard. Now he is a hero. Saddam Hussein’s trial diminished him in the eyes of all.

(We must hope that Mohammed misheard the word of God, and that what Bin Laden finds in paradise is 72 vegans.)

The arguments are not straightforward either way. A powerful case can be made both for murdering Bin Laden and also for capturing him alive. At the moment, we simply don’t have enough information to know whether he was murdered or not, although it looks that way. The White House spin doctors have managed to create a bad smell around the whole issue.

I know my readers don’t expect from The Polemicist “on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand.” But, on this occasion, I am genuinely undecided. I would welcome your views.

Oh, and PS: Incidentally, “Osama Bin Laden” is an anagram for “Lob da man in sea.” Sinister, or what?

I wrote in an earlier post of the attempt by Ugandan bigots in parliament to pass a bill introducing the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. That was blocked by the president after an international outcry.

Now, in the wake of general unrest in Uganda, influenced by the Arab Spring, extremists are trying again. Please click on the link below and sign the petition against the bill.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_homophobia_petition_2/?vl

Last weekend, rumors spread in Cairo, Egypt, of a marriage between a Muslim and a Christian. The predictable result was a Muslim riot. About 500 fundamentalists armed with firebombs attacked a neighborhood, setting fire to churches, homes and shops. At St. Mina Church, Coptic Christians barricaded themselves into the building and gun battles broke out. The upshot was twelve killed and at least 212 injured (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAc0plbI_v0).

It must have been God’s will.