Osama bin Laden is DEAD?!

[CheerfulYank]

?!

What is morality in this case anyway? Is the killing of OBL the decent thing to do if it encourages Afghan women to demand their human rights? Will this embolden people who have lived in fear in remote villages to the point where girls can openly attend school?

"Is the killing of OBL the decent thing to do if it encourages Afghan women to demand their human rights?"

Do you really want to send the message to an already troubled part of the world that it's OK to go killing people in order to achieve what you consider to be a good objective?

I don't think the threat of the imposition of sharia law in the West is anything to scoff at. It's every bit as much of a threat to the west as anything from history.

That 'No free man...' business didn't apply to ancestors of mine, who were dispossessed of their property left, right and centre, and a forebear whose severed head was displayed on the walls of the town he lived in for years after his judicially ordered death... It's possible that there were elements of public opinion that would have had qualms about the hanging, drawing and quartering of an uppity Irish Catholic priest on trumped up charges back in the 18th century, but the idea that the west has any sort of claim to a long unblemished record where human rights or the rule of law are concerned doesn't hold water.

The clear message sent to the world by insisting (now at this late stage in the game) on a rule of law, to people who live in former colonies of either Britain or the Ottoman Empire, is that the west reserves the right to move the goalposts and to hold people to standards it did not always adhere to itself.

"That 'No free man...' business didn't apply to ancestors of mine, who were dispossessed of their property left, right and centre"

And again I'll say that the imperfections and errors of the past are no excuse to give up on trying to do the right thing. Mistakes from the past do not justify errors in the present and as someone has already said the whole OBL and AQ thing has grown out of us, as in the west, following a "the ends justify the means" philosophy when dealing with the Mujahadeen. That's a pretty clear example where dumping your principles when facing a challenge is a very self defeating thing to do.

"the idea that the west has any sort of claim to a long unblemished record where human rights or the rule of law are concerned doesn't hold water"

I'm not claiming that. My country alone has a long and glorious history of human rights abuses without even having to look further afield to "the west". But that doesn't mean that we should just give up and accept our Governments doing pretty much whatever they please.

"the west reserves the right to move the goalposts and to hold people to standards it did not always adhere to itself"

This isn't about the standards adhered to other countries but the standards that we ourselves adhere to.

Trying to do the right thing is essentially changing the rules and expecting everyone to go along though. What constitutes the right thing may seem clearcut as the rule of law would seem to be an unimpeachable proposition (and certainly the alternative is every bit as unpalatable as you suggest it is).

But there are shades of grey here as this man did declare war on America and the west in general, declared his intention not to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and to bring the west to its knees. And he had the means to carry out his threats -- no doubt the extent of the threat he posed will now be gauged as his links with the Pakistani and perhaps other governments will be learned from the computers confiscated at his compound. It is worth remembering that loose cannons in Pakistan have already exported nuclear technology to North Korea. The idea of defending yourself could be extended from the small scale (did he have a weapon pointed at US military personnel when he was shot?) to the large scale (did he personally or the network he controlled pose an ongoing threat to security?) How does it further the aim of maintaining the rule of law to leave such a determined enemy of a society that holds it in high esteem free to go about his self-ordained mission?

There's no argument for continuing errors of the past here -- I'm suggesting that there is a lot of cultural arrogance in claiming the moral high ground here for the west or for particular western traditions. It was once considered the moral duty of the British to civilise vast swathes of the globe. Recently, the US has taken to calling itself a beacon for democracy (whatever that term means). I think we are in agreement on the mistakes of the past, but we should examine the assumptions we hold when it comes to insisting on others (the US) following our new rules. It's not that different from the old insistence that our rules were good for everyone.

"Trying to do the right thing is essentially changing the rules and expecting everyone to go along though."

No it's just trying to make sure that we follow the rules that we have, for a very long time, claimed to follow. Justice through trials and not summary execution is a big part of that (and again I'd just like to point out that we don't know if this was anything like a summary execution).

"this man did declare war on America and the west in general, declared his intention not to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and to bring the west to its knees."

He might try and bring us to our knees, I will not just drop down onto them when it's claimed that justice might be too expensive, too complex or just too awkward for us to actually bother with.

"How does it further the aim of maintaining the rule of law to leave such a determined enemy of a society that holds it in high esteem free to go about his self-ordained mission?"

I've never for one moment said that he should be free to do what he wants to do.

Looking at the term 'the west' I think there's a tendency to see the west as monolithic, whereas the US has always done its own thing regardless of what the rest of the westernised world wants, veering from isolationism to minute involvement in the affairs of the rest of the world and an attitude that there is some sort of right that goes along with it.

There isn't really any 'we' or any 'our rules' when it comes to American security or American perceptions of threat. The US really does not see itself as part of any western bloc, despite lip service to allies during the Bush years and despite a more positive attitude towards the UN and the international community by the Obama administration -- it sees itself as a lone operator, and Obama's speech restated the American view that America's best interests will be served, with all other considerations taking the back seat. I think there's an element of delusion therefore in any assertion that a British point of order about the rule of law will be listened to, or any American voice with the same message.

Doing the right thing means different things to different people. The right thing for the US, in the opinion of a very bright lawyer who is the President, was to kill bin Laden personally and to couch the killing in terns of justice served. And maybe he had a point there too -- a bullet to the head is a language that is easy to understand for people who speak this way (wannabe terrorists), whereas insisting on the rule of law sounds like someone trying to sell snake oil to people ground down by regimes and organisations who have justified all sorts of oppression and criminality by reference to Law/ the Koran, etc.

Impressive arguments on both sides.

I think you have to decide what this war is about. For me it's about preserving ideals that are precious and universal, not just western, eg the right to a trial. Just because some violent terrorists or violent governments deny those rights to some people, doesn't mean we should shrug them off as if they didn't matter. The only thing we can control is our own integrity. Violence breeds violence until someone puts a stop to it.

How can we expect to gain the respect of the islamic world if we are so devious and hypocritical? Either everyone deserves a trial or no-one does, surely? Whatever the practical implications. And one way of reducing the bad consequences of capturing, keeping and trying OBL would be to speed up the frigging justice system. It doesn't have to take so long.

I think the US has decided this war is about winning and about security and let the chips fall where they may -- quite a narrow view, but the alternative is loss of face, loss of influence and loss of money.

There's another aspect to this gesture on Pakistani soil that is important to the US imo, and that is the message that the US has expectations of real help and not just platitudes from governments that it supports financially. The deviousness told the Pakistani government that the US does not trust it as far as it could throw it, and sends a message that in future there will be some accountability required along with all those millions in aid. And I think there is an element of integrity (of the wild west kind for sure) in saying you will track down Osama and get him dead or alive, and then doing that. There is no arguing with the fact that America meant exactly what America said wrt Osama bin Laden.

Speeding up the justice system can be done certainly, but possibly at the expense of aspects of the process that are there to ensure that justice is done? The killing of OBL might be interpreted as the ultimate in speeding up of justice. I think the justification of the killing as opposed to the trial route is that he had declared war on the US and could be therefore seen as an active enemy of the US even if not specifically pointing a gun right there where he allegedly died.

See, math , this is why we need a "like" button. :)

This has just been discussed on the Moral Maze, Radio 4, and one of the speakers made the point that the killing of OBL is a real lost opportunity. Whereas the US could have shown the world how democracies work, and apply the same laws to everyone, on this occasion it has sunk to the level of dictators who just execute any opposition. OBL could have been brought to trial, made to account for his actions, humbled and put firmly in the wrong in everyone's eyes, not just ours.

All the points made above were also made by various speakers. Melanie Phillips thinks like you, Math, that it is a war and so the killing was justified. And I think that is Obama's take on it too.

The speaker I refered to above also made the point that although taking OBL to court could have meant hostages, more bombs in retaliation etc, that is just speculation, and killing him could equally well have the same effect.

Very sad affair, and badly done, imo.

I don't think anything the US does or does not do really has any effect on what al Qaeda does -- the element of provocation is a red herring. Disappointed therefore that they apparently will not be showing any photos of the body. This can only lead to speculation that he is in custody, possibly being tortured, not dead, escaped, etc.

Yikes may have to reconsider my opinions now that Ms Phillips has weighed in . She paints with strokes that are pretty wide imo. I think that having identified him as a target from 9/11 on, the US basically had no choice but to seek him dead or alive and I think it was always known that he would have to be taken using force and that force might mean deadly force and yes I think he probably knew this too, hence the fortified compound and the secrecy and elusiveness (and probable protection within Pakistan). To not find him would have meant a victory for him and to show hesitation to kill him would have shown weakness to the enemies of the US. I'm not sure that the US would have chosen this particular example of the 'propaganda of the deed' if it had been possible to take him alive, and I think extrajudicial killing goes against the grain of this particular American president, but there is substantial value to the event the way it turned out too.

Originally what the US did or not was what Al qaeda was all about.

supporting corrupt regimes in exchange for oil contract + instrumentalizing fundamentalist movements to keep these dictators in check just in case etc....Its a wide generalization but it is well documented that is how the CIA operated until it proved catastrophically counter productive.

Math pertinently explained how the situation on the street has changed so much in recent months and how, this had been long in the making.
Am quite saddened that there is not more commentary in the papers about that.
About how deaf western powers have been and how short sighted.

I think that now that everyone is lisitening and realizing how the vast majority of these populations are far from a monolithic block of backward wanna be jihadists, OBL has just served his purpose and can be discarded.
People want a better life and want to be heard, that's all.
Their grievances against the west have little to do with religious or cultural differences.

Am curious to see what the new doctrine will be. So far, its merely containment. Maybe that's what it should be. Let people mature their OWN choices since it now seems we have accepted the ARE capable of making "good" choices.

"therefore seen as an active enemy of the US even if not specifically pointing a gun right there where he allegedly died"

I can see situations where he need not be pointing a gun and yet could be shot. As you do correctly say this is, except in the strictest legal sense, a war.

However the line is crossed if (and right now it is still a big if) he surrendered, was taken into custody and was then just summarily executed.

That is why I think they should show photos. Death in the course of a gunfight might result in a good deal of blood and gore but at least it could be seen as a fair fight, as opposed to a shot to the back of the head in a cell somewhere. Although no photo is immune from allegations of doctoring..

As an aside -- using maximum force against those who have violated American territorial integrity is not new and nor is the controversy over whether it is justified (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

"using maximum force against those who have violated American territorial integrity is not new and nor is the controversy over whether it is justified (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki)."

The use of maximum force is not in question here.

What is in question is the treatment of prisoners after they have been captured and the morality if, and it is just an if right now, the US never intended to capture OBL and just executed him after he was in their captivity.

The photos/ video of the interior rooms of the compound seem to indicate a gunfight, and there have been reports that a daughter of his said she saw him shot at the site. Blurry reports and lack of photographic evidence make it reasonable to speculate about what exactly happened though.

But realistically, even if the US had ruled out killing him, and decided to take him alive no matter how difficult and put him on trial, extracting him from wherever he was holed up would have required force, as it was presumed he was surrounded by armed security, and with use of force comes the risk that he would be killed in the course of the operation. In 2001 the US and its allies were prepared to use air strikes and an all-out offensive at Tora Bora in order to capture or kill bin Laden but allegedly missed achieving either aim by a whisker in the confusion of battle. The possibility that Osama bin Laden would die in the course of a brush with US forces is one that both parties have lived with for a long time.

Using any kind of force means accepting that the target may be killed, so it really is an issue, but in the case of bin Laden it would probably have been impossible to just knock on his door and cuff him when he answered. I heard a report that the US had ruled out the use of drone attacks on the compound, so they had apparently made a decision to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer approach -- they clearly made an attempt to gauge exactly what sort of force would be necessary and appropriate but still with a good guarantee of success here, possibly with the intention of a live capture of OBL or at least getting some useful photographic proof of a fair fight.

"Using any kind of force means accepting that the target may be killed"

I have not questioned the use of force.

I have not questioned the possibility of death because of that.

What I have questioned right from my very post on this thread is that it could in anyway be "moral" or "right" to deliberately throw justice out of the window and to summarily execute OBL.

Dying in a firefight is one thing, being shot because he seemed to be going for a weapon or he was "resisting" is similar. If he was captured, taken into a soldiers custody and then just shot then I think it's pretty obvious that a line has been crossed.

"I heard a report that the US had ruled out the use of drone attacks on the compound"

Yes they did, but that doesn't imply anything about whether or not they had any intent on capturing him or were just going for an assassination.

And again right now I'd like to emphasise that we have no idea of what really went on. However my personal opinion is that I cannot believe that the US went in there with the specific intent of killing him no matter what happened. If we've slipped that far than AQ has won and we have lost.

Imo ruling out a drone attack really is an indication that live capture was contemplated, but with the realisation that the death of OBL as a collateral casualty in the fracas couldn't be ruled out. That is not summary execution in any case. Drone attacks result in the levelling of their targets, with certain death for anyone in the vicinity either from the bombs themselves or from missiles fired at escaping individuals. I don't think they could have established a dragnet around the compound, on the ground in Pakistan, to capture OBL if he had managed to flee a bombed building.

I personally can't see Obama being so gung ho that he would order a straightforward assassination -- maybe Dick Cheney, but not Obama, even though in a compound that presumably housed plenty of security guards only four people ended up being shot, one of them being Osama himself (one goat per week delivered, plus other food grown or raised in situ, and buildings sufficient for a small force to sleep and live suggests the presence of a fair number of people there).

But I don't think it hurts the US in many quarters to allow the suspicion that an out and out assassination was the aim, and that a specially trained force accomplished its aim with no human casualties on its own side. Those who would wish for a fair trial and civilised justice are probably not going to be supporting terrorists anyway, and this gesture is one that gives terror supporters pause.

AQ have now confirmed UBL's death. I think it was the right decision not to publish any photos.

BTW: mathanxiety: I don't share the view that Obama would not order an assassination. In his address to the nation to announce the death he said

"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network".

Note that "killing" was the first mentioned option.

"Imo ruling out a drone attack really is an indication that live capture was contemplated"

No.

If the intention were to kill OBL then sending in a team on the ground would be the only way to guarantee confirmation of who had been killed. A drone strike would quite probably level the building and make positive identification that OBL was there and had been killed impossible. Plus it would also make seizing evidence and other items an impossibility.

So ruling out a drone strike doesn't say anything about the intention of the mission.

"the death of OBL as a collateral casualty in the fracas couldn't be ruled out"

And as already said several times I don't have a problem with that.

"But I don't think it hurts the US in many quarters to allow the suspicion that an out and out assassination was the aim"

I think it hurts them and us a lot.

1. It shows that AQ is winning, the US/the West can be made to back away from their principles in the face of a challenge.
2. It encourages further terrorism as terrorists see that AQ is winning.
3. It encourages further terrorism as the terrorists creed that the ends justify the means is given weight and support by the actions of the US.
4. It encourages further terrorism as the message is given out that it's OK to just kill your enemy if justice is too tricky, expensive or awkward for you.

"gesture is one that gives terror supporters pause"

No it gives terror supporters the belief that the US is being beaten down to their level and that their now shared tactics are not only successful but clearly acceptable.

Aiming just to capture him would have been unrealistic. The either/or element of the aims expresses the contempt the US feels for bin Laden, throws down the gauntlet, draws a line in the sand and makes it clear that his life is not something the US values. It also implies that capture or killing would essentially mean the same thing in practical terms for OBL himself.

To some extent I see that sentence as a rhetorical device, though it is also an encapsulation of policy. But I think that policy was to show the world that his days were numbered no matter what. I don't see the placing of 'killing' or 'capture' in the sentence as being significant except for cadence purposes. Obama is an excellent speaker and has a feel for the flow of his words (for example 'disrupt, dismantle and defeat').

In 'disrupt, dismantle and defeat' the 'I' vowel sounds come first too, though 'defeat' is obviously the word that makes sense as the last one in that sentence, the ultimate aim of the entire operation.

I agree Obama is a very savvy speaker. That is why precisely why I think the word order is important.