I've been watching the growing controversy on the left over the legal and moral issues surrounding the death of bin Laden, and I find myself chagrined at the position many people are taking which, in effect, elevates bin Laden to the role of wronged victim while casting President Obama and his administration as the villain of the piece. As dangerous as it is to wade into the swirling waters of this debate, I feel the need to offer my viewpoint beyond making comments in others' diaries.
Let's consider some arguments:
~One frequent complaint is that bin Laden should have been captured and brought to trial instead of killed, because that would be adhering to the rule of law which we are supposed to honor as Americans. I take issue with that argument on many fronts.
First of all, a failure of this mission would be catastrophic for the President and for the United States. As risky and dangerous as killing bin Laden was, trying to capture him would be infinitely more so. The chance of numerous unnecessary deaths or injuries both to the SEAL team and to the others living in the compound in such a scenario would be very great. The chance of failure would increase exponentially.
Suppose the team did succeed in capturing bin Laden. Where would he then be held? Where would he be tried? Consider the hue and cry when President Obama tried to bring Guantanamo prisoners to the United States for imprisonment and trial. People were afraid to put them in US prisons; New Yorkers of all stripes were terrified of the dangers of bringing them to trial in NYC; no one wanted to bear the huge security costs and there was legitimate fear of a media circus, and so survivors, police, pundits, politicians and ordinary citizens banded together in opposition. How, then would trying Osama bin Laden, by any measure a more outsized defendant, be manageable? I believe it's utterly unrealistic to imagine it would be possible.
And think of the challenges in empaneling a jury, of finding the right judge, of keeping the defendant safe during the trial, of deciding how much he would be allowed to speak, of limiting a spike of Islamaphobia, of managing the press. And since he had already confessed his crimes, proudly, what about a verdict? If he were sentenced to life in prison, where would he be jailed? Not a prison in the country would accept him. And if he received the death penalty, how would he be executed? By whom? Where? And do you think these same people would find this solution preferable?
~Another complaint is that the team carried out an execution in a sovereign country without permission of that country.
This is a knotty problem. If the Pakistani government had been asked permission, would they have agreed outright? Would they have agreed, but then warned bin Laden and his associates (more likely)? Or if they refused, would it be the position of the United States that bin Laden should therefore be left unmolested as long as he was living in Pakistan? Clearly, the intelligence showed that he was in that compound to stay, from which he was planning further attacks. Do those who objected to the President's actions take the position that we should honor his safety? I find it troubling that the duplicity (or ineptitude) of the Pakistani government or intelligence services should render taking action against this mass murderer off limits.
~Many have suggested that the US was acting in defiance of international law by carrying out this killing.
Consider bin Laden's portfolio: He was not a citizen of any country, having had his citizenship revoked in his native Saudi Arabia. He and his movement operated outside the parameters of any government, working as stateless operatives. He was a war criminal by virtue of his carrying out acts of war against civilians in numerous countries without adhering to a single principle of international law. He was a confessed mass murderer, bragging repeatedly about the attacks he had engineered against numerous thousands of non-combatant civilians--men, women and children of all races, creeds, colors and political persuasions. He exhorted his followers, including women, children and the mentally disabled, to embrace martyrdom, while keeping himself safe from harm. His stated goal was to destroy both the economy and way of life of the United States. He was planning further attacks from a safe haven, being protected by at least some members of a government that is at least officially a US ally, and recipient of massive economic aid.
Here is my question: In what way does such a person--given that we live in the real world rather than an image of an ideal world--deserve the rights and protections of international law? I say this as someone who spends time each year working with public defenders and death penalty lawyers, protecting the rights of the poor and the disadvantaged to have their day in court with a competent defense. But bin Laden is not an ordinary criminal. He is not offering up a denial that he in fact committed all those murders. He is both sane and highly intelligent, and has a network of others employed to magnify the damage he seeks to cause. He operates independent of a country or government. I believe he is a special case.
It distresses me that such a person could become a cause celebre on the left, while our President is described as a terrorist assassin. I have to shake my head in sad wonder, as these allegations continue to blossom and grow.