The US has set a dangerous precedent by ordering the killing of bin Laden. But it’s not too late to save American foreign policy.
The execution of Osama bin Laden on May 1 by a team of US Navy Seals sends a brutal message to the world that the extermination of the United States’ enemies takes precedence over any consideration of morality or international law. For daring to attack the United States, al-Qaeda’s founder had to be hunted down and exterminated, however long it took and at whatever the cost. Might is right.
Other governments will note the example set by the United States—an example that might also be copied by non-state actors, and even by aggrieved citizens. After all, Americans aren’t alone in having national interests, legitimate grievances and enemies they wish to bury. Others, too, can claim the right of self-defence, overriding legal or ethical constraints.
Israel has been doing so for decades. As a matter of deliberate policy, it has carried out numerous extra-judicial killings of its political enemies, and appears to have no qualms about violating the sovereignty of other countries. In a recent blog, US lawyer John Whitbeck reports that Gen. Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli chief of staff known for his tough tactics, has claimed the credit for inspiring the US assassination strategy. Mofaz is now chairman of the Knesset’s foreign affairs committee.
If states can resort to terrorism with impunity in order to kill their enemies, political leaders must be prepared to face the same rough ‘justice’ at the hands of the followers, friends or relatives of their victims. What if a hit team of Iraqi Baathists, for example, seeking to avenge the wanton destruction of their party, their army and their country, were to track down the orchestrators of the Iraq War? Would that be terrorism or justice? What if a Pashtun tribal leader were to decide that the director of the CIA should be targeted for the drone attacks that have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians in the tribal areas of Pakistan? Would that be terrorism or justice?
Would the United States not have been better served had it upheld the rule of law in Abbottabad rather than resorting to the law of the jungle?
Terrible and tragic as was the fate of the 3,000 victims of 9/11, they aren’t the only ones to be mourned. In seeking to punish bin Laden’s al-Qaeda for its attack on America’s heartland, the United States waged wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan—wars that are thought to have caused, by some estimates, about a million deaths, not to mention the wounded and the displaced, and all those whose lives have been shattered by the massive disturbance and material destruction of these conflicts. The dead from these misguided wars cry out for vengeance from the grave. Whether they are Iraqis, Afghans or Pakistanis, they, too, are mourned.
Just as the United States’ alleged torture of ‘unlawful combatants’ in Iraq and elsewhere gave a blank cheque to Arab tyrants and others to torture their own citizens, so the assassination of America’s number one enemy will encourage others to resort to the same lawless methods.
Photo Credit: US Embassy New Zealand
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Paul
Obama did not order the killing of Osama. What an uninformed article. There were contingency plans made for all sorts of theoretical situations. There were teams readied to interrogate Osama if he was captured alive. The fact of the matter is that there was a firefight as the Seals entered the building. Osama was not caught unprepared and for all the Seals knew, he could have had a suicide vest on.
The idea that we should put our soldiers in danger (and taking him alive would have been much more dangerous) is absurd. Furthermore, Osama declared WAR on the US (and the West in general). The normal application of law is not applied to those who have stated their intent to fight WAR against the US.
Finally, for those Chinese comments slandering law in the US. Quiet. I’ve lived here and there is just no comparing the farce of “law” in China to LAW in the US.
Mukul
“Obama did not order the killing of Osama.” Well, according to the President of the United States, he himself signed the death warrant of Bin Laden on April 29, 2011.
John Chan
From the majority comments here, it shows that people in the US have no concept of Rule of Law, no wonder the US has the world highest crime rate and murder rate, hence the world can formally declare that the US is the king of Law of the Jungle hence all courts. The medieval Dark Ages has returned to the world due to ruthless leadership of the US.
Execute a person without fair trail is the routine used by Augusto Pinochet to murder human right fighters, why has the International Court of Justice not yet set motion to arrest and prosecute those responsible for the international killing, and uphold the Rule of Law for the world and humanity?
Cloud Hand
To borrow chess,
I see stand a line of pawns
Behind where a king like hide;
But when the chain is pierce
Will spell an end of kings and tropics,
At last benign woodman will lead the ravage lion to trail.
However that said, with compare to Chinese civilization to the interim west, one must chucklily remain sad sceptic, whether the american rabble ever accept what is general accept in china people, I mean the law of rule.
Yan
Any human, no matter what atrocities they have committed, still have human rights. We, in the west seemingly champion this notion; constantly condemn and shame Arab and the Middle East for “appalling” disrespect for these rights, but the actions of the US here has completely undermined any progress in promoting better rights for the people of those nations.
Osama Bin Laden, the figurehead of terrorism has undoubtedly caused much pain and suffering, the 3000 lives lost in 9/11 was a tragedy that shook the world and still causes immense grief for those who lost husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, but the question I ask is: what about the estimated millions of husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters who have been sacrificed in this “war against terror”? If, by the example that the US has set, then the past and current presidents of the US should be executed; the heads of all participating nations should be assassinated without trial and none of them should be given the chance to be trialled in front of a court of justice.
Some argue that this man showed no morality in his actions therefore he deserves no compassion or morality in his treatment, but the point is not that he was immoral and committed great crimes against humanity, it is rather the point that his death in such a fashion undermines the ongoing international effort to root out terrorism in all its forms.
Whilst Bin Laden was the figurehead and revered in the world of terrorism, the nature of terrorism has changed so much since the 9/11 attacks; the scope of involvement, the types of people who become in involved and the people who are affected have all changed in the past decade. Since the US initiated war of terrorism, it is not just citizens of the west who are affected with threats of violence and death- those in the countries where governments are weak and terrorist organisations are allowed to run rampant are also affected. Think of the non violent efforts our armies have been trying to make on these fronts, think of the efforts that have been put into building trust with local villages and tribes, think of why these efforts were made in the beginning. It has been recognised that apart from dealing with terrorism on a broad international scale, support for western efforts must be gained from the micro level- the citizens of nations like Afghanistan and Iraq must be convinced that by supported the allied forces, positive progress can occur and their lives will not be threatened by malicious forces. Considerable progress has been made in building ties with even the most dubious villages and tribes who support terrorist organisations to some extent, but this assassination of one man threatens to ruin it all. Convincing people to switch sides in conflict is difficult and this arduous task can take months or years, so for those who the west is still trying to negotiate with but still has reservations, this killing leaves a permanent and detrimental mark on their credibility. If the US can carry out a top secret assassination on one man today, what if they decide that our relations in the future aren’t as good as planned and decide to kill us too?
If the US had detained Bin Laden and gave him to the ICC for trial on the world stage, it would’ve been a sign of good faith to those on the fine line in between the two sides, but furthermore, it would have given this messy conflict a reminder that even though the body count continues to yet no apparent progress has been made, patience and strict adherence to the moral values we champion to other nations will see us to the end.
Bin Laden does not deserve our sympathy, but he was entitled to that fair trial which would have seen him punished anyway, and in the aftermath of his death, the US will have to deal with a myriad of responses, but hopefully not experience a backlash severe enough to undo all of her hard work until now.
Mukul
The US has a very peculiar sense of national security that determines whether they will side with certain terror groups or abandon links with them. Bin Laden was executed because he deflated their bloated self-esteem whereas terrorist like David Coleman Headley who played an active role in orchestrating the gruesome 26/11 attacks on India is given protection as he is an FBI double-agent. Indian investigators were even denied access to him initially lest he should spill the bins about the kind of patronage he received from them. While I have no sympathy for Bin Laden or his accomplice or any other terrorists for that matter, I do feel for those innocent people who were brutalized by the US led forces in Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere in their pursuit of hunting down the world’s most wanted terrorist.
D Ross
This guy was a mass murderer and a wanted fugitive, a self-admitted killer. He even boasted about it on his Internet posts. Americans need to stop worrying about the sensitivities of those who would murder us all.
Raven
This article represents a fundamental lack of understanding of Realism as a school of thought on International Relations. This school is as old as the Melean Dialogue: the strong will do what they can – the weak will suffer what they must. The international political system is a jungle. That is the only rule – always has been and always will be. Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you.
It is all fair and well to pontificate about the justice (or lack of it) of this system – but at least try to reflect some of the realities. For one, assuming that the rest of the world will abide by a set of self-imposed restrictions is, to say the least, naive and myopic. If (for instance) you are under the impression that the lack of precedence is the only limitation that has thus far prevented these various organisations and social groups from pursuing an active strategy against a US homeland target, then you have set the bar way too low.
Siddharth
The author is being extremely naive and ignorant. First he isn’t living in an idealistic world he talks about. US just like any other country is going to prioritize those actions which are beneficial to itself. It’s not some kind of a moral overlord. I totally agree with the author when he says that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were in a way unjust. But I can’t fathom this when he talks about offending Pakistan; you can’t offend a country which has no shame, here I am talking about the people who actually run the country i.e, the military and the ISI. They have reduced this once a great cultural nation founded with strong democratic ideals to a virtually lawless country in which a person in the army or in the ISI can go undetected while helping the most wanted man in the world. I don’t know about whether killing Laden was a good thing or not, but certainly asking Pakistan to apprehend him is a bad idea. Because they’ll never do it as after him they won’t get the money they get for doing nothing from the US.. US has broken laws several times before. One of the worst decisions US has taken is the overthrow of a democratic government in Iran which indirectly led to the Islamic Revolution and also the coup d’eta in Chile. But I certainly agree with the killing of bin Laden. The world is not rainbows and sunshine, you have to resort to such seemingly illegal actions.