"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." The Supreme Court; Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
Regardless what you believe about Osama bin Laden's guilt or innocence regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001, under U.S. law, he was innocent.
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right, recognized internationally by individual states and in international treaties. The Court did not overstate its significance as axiomatic and elemental to the administration of criminal law.
Dick Cheney and others have argued that the threat of terrorism is so grave as to demand the abrogation of such rights in service to its prevention. Are they right?
Are some threats, say a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a terrorist, so grave as to render a once inviolable axiom of U.S. law quaint or inapplicable? Perhaps. Perhaps technological advancement, if you can call it that, and the proliferation thereof, have become so threatening, so destabilizing, so massively destructive to the preservation of a secure state that we can no longer afford the luxury of our fundamental civil rights.
But I pray that is not the case. I have always believed that our security, indeed, our strength as a nation is not derived from our ability to wage war. No, the true measure of our power is derived from our commitment to human rights and justice under the law. This is the weapon that our enemies fear. Not bombs. But the towering beacon of our just cause, for all to see, and for despots to tremble under its right.
But if that be the determination of the American people, to sacrifice the higher ground for the dubious promise of assured preservation, then that determination should be made with deliberation and in law. Not through the shadowy encroachment of signing statements, tucked amendments and covert military raids.
And before the American people make that choice, we should think long and hard about just what we are sacrificing. As Aaron Sorkin so brilliantly wrote in his screenplay for 'The American President",
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."
Advanced citizenship is understanding that unless we are willing to allow due process, even for those we find most reprehensible, then no one will truly have justice.
Advanced citizenship is understanding that only through the rigorous adherence to the rule of law, and an unrelenting commitment to human rights, even for those who are not our citizens, do we gain validation of our cause.
Lastly, I make no claim on the legality of Osama bin Laden's death. There are conflicting reports on what exactly the orders were. I have no way of knowing which reports are factual. I do believe it was in the US's right to capture bin Laden and if he had fired on US soldiers, or attempted to do so, they would have been in their right to defend themselves. But CIA director Leon Panetta said this to Brian Williams:
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
Did the President’s order read capture or kill or both or just one of those?
LEON PANETTA:
The authorities we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then– they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed.
This somewhat ambiguous statement strongly suggests that, despite any broader rules of engagement, the specific orders were to kill. And that appears to be the orders they carried out.
If this is the case, we are a lesser country for it.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." William Blackstone
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, "Wanted: Dead or Alive." George Bush
(For more background on the Presumption of Innocence, see here and here)