Like many others, my first reaction to the killing of Bin Laden was to wish that we had captured him, put him on trial, then let him grow old and rot in prison. But of course, my reactions were more mixed than that. It’s hard to argue that he didn’t get what he deserved and to not be glad and relieved that he’s dead, but I hate the idea of America being in the assassination business. And yes, I would have preferred putting him on trial, but where on earth (literally) would we have found an impartial jury? The situation President Obama was presented with was a uniquely difficult one.
Should he have stuck to international law, informed the Pakistanis, and risked having Bin Laden tipped off? Should he have ordered a bombing raid, thus not risking the lives of American soldiers but undoubtedly killing innocent civilians and possibly leaving unanswered the question of whether Bin Laden had been taken out?
I think in the end we have to admit that there was no perfect solution to this dilemma. It brings to mind the arguments in the torture debate, and the answer that I think is the only logical one. Torture apologists like to posit the hypothetical situation of a captured terrorist who is the only one that can provide the information to stop a ticking time bomb. If torture is the only way to get the information in time to stop mass destruction, they argue, must we not then make torture a legal option? As others have said, the answer is not to make the immoral legal, but for the person who must make this snap decision to choose an admittedly illegal action and willingly face the judgment of history.
I believe this is the kind of decision President Obama faced, and I think history will judge him sympathetically, just as the American people seem to be doing.
