I've been thinking a lot about the killing of self-proclaimed terrorist, Osama bin Laden. My issue is not with the guilt or innocence of Osama bin Laden. He has declared himself responsible for 9/11; even if he's not, just wanting the credit suggests that if not 9/11 then he is responsible for other acts of terrorism. However, even if the police catch a person strangling the body with bare hands that person is still entitled to dues process under our laws which means a trial, a judgment, and a sentence. Even if that sentence is death, we don't simply execute someone without the benefit of due process, even when guilt is certain. Indeed, in our justice system, confession is about brokering a deal generally to take the death penalty off the table. In other words those who declare I did it gain a reprieve from execution and generally receive a sentence of life imprisonment in exchange for saving the state the cost of a full prosecution.
Traditionally, adherence to a system of justice that strives for fairness and an even application of law is taken as a significant mark of civilization. We, as a nation, certainly criticize and strongly object to the paths of nations that imprison without trial, punish without due process, and eliminate undesirable elements by simply executing them.
Our track record in recent years has not been good. We invaded Iraq based on false information which more and more evidence supports that our leadership knew to be false. We have imprisoned people at Guantanamo without benefit of trial which violates the Constitution in which many of us purport to believe. We have consistently refused to acknowledge that these prisoners, who haven't been officially charged with anything, have a right to a speedy trial, having made up a new term to apply to them, "enemy combatants." They are neither prisoners of war nor prisoners of our legal system, expressly so that they may be denied the due process owed under military law or civil law. I think the summary execution of bin Laden is yet another misstep on the part of this country. We insist to others that it is not might that makes right but that laws ensure justice for all. Yet in this instance we behaved much the same as any of the governments whom we have criticized in the past, acting as judge, jury and executioner and bypassing even a semblance of justice. Papa Doc and Idi Amin should not be our role models.
Funny thing is, the outcome would have been the same. No doubt bin Laden would have been found guilty and sentenced to death but in the eyes of the world we would have appeared to adhere to the higher standard for which we have so strongly advocated since the founding of this country. We haven't always reached that standard, but if a man or a woman's reach does not exceed his or her grasp, then what's a heaven for? (my thanks to Robert Browning)
I take issue with assassination as justice, no matter how vile the person. When we make exceptions to our ethics, to our code of law, we lessen ourselves, betray our own integrity. My concern isn't for bin Laden, but for this country's ability to claim moral authority (which we do quite often) after this assassination. Imagine any other country entering a nation uninvited and killing a person who by its own account was not armed because of some terrorist act that person allegedly committed against its people, how would we regard that action?
Fellow blogger, Elizabeth, shared a passage from an article by Noam Chomsky that fleshes out my rhetorical question.
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.
Amen, Sheria. My thoughts (almost) exactly, as you well know.
ReplyDeleteSheria,
ReplyDelete(I accidentally posted this comment in the earlier entry.) I think a lot of people are assuming that bin Laden surrendered or tried to. I have read that he was unarmed and that seems to be the case, but I do not think we know the full story beyond that. I rather doubt that bin Laden would have seen any point in surrendering; he may have just committed “suicide by Navy SEAL.”
dino, certainly a possibility but the shadow of doubt that hangs over it is still discomfiting. There was a vague reference in an early report to threatening behavior by bin Laden but no follow up details as to what that behavior was and in what sense it was threatening given that he was unarmed and presumably the SEALs were. I am Obama's number one fan, but this disturbs me and it should disturb him.
ReplyDeleteDino, this may have been a suicide by SEALs, but more likely scenarios based on available info suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeleteEarly reports (which the White House regrets, I suspect) informed us that the SEALs shot at Osama as soon as they noticed him inside the house, coming to the rail on the upper floor to see his son killed. They missed; he ran into his bedroom, where they followed, shooting at him and wounding his wife, who rushed toward them, and then killing OBL with shots to the chest and head.
Nowhere in those early reports was any mention of even a possibility, time- and space-wise, of surrendering on OBL's part. Not surprisingly, since the SEALs were given orders to assassinate him. According to some reports, Obama signed a "kill" order for OBL on April 29th.
Leon Panetta, bless his talkative heart, admitted as much before he was asked not to talk so freely to the press. Panetta also revealed that there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.
This during a 40-minute operation. So apparently for over half of it, no one, other than the SEALs on the ground, knew what really was going on. And no one other than those present will ever know. That is, until one of those SEALs finally writes a tell-all book.
This desperate whitewashing -- "he would have been taken alive if he only raised his hands, etc." -- is just that: desperate whitewashing designed to make this deed more palatable to the trusting public.
Thanks for the facts, Elizabeth. I just sent an email to the White House that essentially sums up my blog post. The more that I learn about this, the more unacceptable I find this course of action. Just read an article that you may have already seen, but if not, I think that you will find it interesting. The link: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m09.shtml (The Death Agony of American Democracy)
ReplyDeleteI've stayed away from these discussions on how best to dispatch bin Laden - seeing merit in both sides of the argument - a reflection of my own ambivalence. Given a choice between performing seals versus kangaroo court, perhaps this is the final irony fit for our times: Carp got the last of bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion enjoins the great debate around 'ethics' vs. 'situational ethics' (the art of the possible). At what point, we ask ourselves, does the ethical finally disappear entirely, leaving only the situational advantage?
ReplyDeleteLike (O)CT(O)PUS, I see merit in both sides of the argument, and here's a site that discusses those sides.
ReplyDeleteAs for our ideals, we have, since the founding of this great nation, more often than not failed to live up to them.
All,
ReplyDeleteI think you could argue this till the last herd of herbivorous duckbill dinos comes home -- there's situational ethics involved, there's the blur between war and crime with regard to 9/11, and so forth. One thing that's almost certain is that the vast majority of the public won't care about the legal implications: not in this instance, not with this wanted man. On purely Machiavellian grounds, the President did what he had to do, and he is unlikely to be closely questioned about it. In the broadest context, yes, it's troubling how much power the chief executive now has -- this has been a disturbing trend at least since Nixon's so-called "imperial presidency," and it just keeps getting worse. I must say that we dinos may have been simple, but we were smart enough as a species not to give one well-dressed lizard a suitcase with the code numbers to destroy the entire planet with nuclear warheads. Humans!
Am not sure it would have been hard to convict bin Laden for 9/11 and indeed for other acts of terror: those attacks were carried out by al Qaeda operatives, weren't they? It's hard to see how anyone but bin Laden could have been responsible for them. He took the credit, and there seems to be a pile of evidence that he was plotting still more violence.
What if, just what if 9/11 and bin Laden were symptoms? What, then, is the actual disease?
ReplyDelete(That could the basis of a foundational ethical debate, not merely debating the process of how ethically the symptoms were handled and treated...)
Thanks, Sheria, for the link to this very good piece. I have more thoughts about it, but not enough time right now.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'd like to bring up quickly something apparently forgotten in this discussion: four innocent people were killed along with Osama during this raid: Osama's 19-year-old son, an unknown (to us) woman, and two brothers who were Osama's couriers. (If nothing else, Osama's couriers would have been an invaluable source of information, I imagine. However, we don't want information -- we want blood.)
One of the couriers may have pulled out a weapon when attacked by the SEALs (something we'll never know for sure), so we hear arguments telling us that shooting him was "self-defense."
Of course if he were American, then we'd argue that his actions -- pulling out a weapon, or even shooting when ambushed in his own residence -- were justified as self-defense; but since he was a brown-skinned Muslim in a far away place, our customary standards of justice apparently do not apply.
And the remaining three, including the woman?
Are we calling these killings justified, too? You know, collateral damage -- regrettable, but inevitable in the fog of war?
It is all deeply disturbing.
I concluded immediately that capture and ensuing trial of bin Laden would be akin to chumming the water for sharks; it would cause untold and ongoing levels of escalating the propaganda wars and be a continual rallying point and catalyst for further unrest . Killing him eliminates all that "drama".
ReplyDeleteOur "war on terror" is not a declared war in the traditional sense; it is rhetorical, like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". In this case the issue is not simple black-and-white; there is no one state to square off with as we had in WWII. But in a broader sense it is a war at that. So in that context, taking out bin Laden and any other person who conducts attacks against our state and civilians, I feel falls within that context.
Though we do try non-citizens in court under constitutional protections (as we should) bin Laden's acts were conducted as if at war, not merely as a crime. In this case I agree with the president, "justice" was served.
All,
ReplyDeleteWhoever got this crazy idea that government is ethical? Government is first about conquest, then about power and the maintenance thereof. I thought I made this clear in this post:
“If the first problem facing our cave-dwelling forbearers was survival; the second was government. No matter how enlightened any form of government appears in theory, all governments have a primordial mean streak, an instinct to lash out and violate their own laws and principles - especially in times of war. Consider the suspension of habeas corpus (Civil War) and the internment of Japanese-Americans (World War II), as examples. Make no mistake. No matter whom you elect, someone will control your life; and your choice at the ballot box is between competing visions of governance.”
Ethics in the context of government is a non sequitur, and I challenge everyone to go back and reread Plato on the meaning of “noble lies and pious deceptions” and secret texts. Perhaps Machiavelli or Thomas Hobbes deserve a word here.
What's the difference between a politician and an ethicist? At least a $100,000 a year if not more.
Government and ethics have indeed parted company on more than one occasion, but as my mother (all mothers) was fond of saying, "Just because all your friends jump off a cliff are you going to do it too?"
ReplyDeleteAs I've aged, I've come to better understand that Mama was basically summarizing the problem with situational ethics. It doesn't matter that we have always fallen short of taking the high road; what matters is that we continue to try to do so. It matters not one whit that government is just unethical. What does that mean? Do we just accept that with a shrug?
Who is government? It's the people, we the people. We can complain all we want about what politicians do but we're the ones who elect them and place them in positions of power. Of course, a lot of us (broad use of "us" do not get hung up on protesting that you are politically involved) do not exercise our right to participate in making those choices because we don't vote. Then there are those who do vote but never take the time to understand the issues, treating voting as if they are picking their numbers on a lottery ticket.
The very reason that we need to have these discussions across America is because adherence to situational ethics has become so commonplace that we don't even blink in its presence.
As for the "war on terror," we have intentionally removed any of the protections afforded the enemy in war time from this so called war. In war times, when the enemy is captured and is unarmed we don't shoot them down in cold blood, we take them into custody and they become prisoners of war. We can't have it both ways. If this is a war, then the conventions of war should apply and all those folks held in Guantanamo are entitled to the protections of their status as prisoners of war; however, they have been declared "enemy combatants" for the sole purpose of keeping them in a political limbo, neither POWS nor prisoners of our justice system.
We haven't declared war on anyone; and you cannot declare war on an ideology and then proceed as if you are a nation at war. With whom? Bin Laden? If so, does his death signal the end of the war? How will we even know when this war on terror has ended? We simply coin terms to justify our behavior and that is the heart of situational ethics.
I have much to say and very little time, so let me just tell you that this is an excellent post and it is always so nice to see someone put the words to my mixed up thoughts.
ReplyDeleteSheria,
ReplyDeleteMamma was no doubt very wise, and I have no argument with you or Mamma. My only point is that we should keep a sober and realistic view with regards to an inherent and unspoken 'dark side' of government. How many times in the history of this republic have the people knowingly and willingly violated the rule of law and acted as a mindless rabble. Today especially, we have a Teahoo movement all to willing to sell us out to special interests, panderers, and proto-fascists. These times do not affirm my belief in the beneficence of the system or the wisdom of the electorate.
Octo. We are ALL losing faith in the beneficence of the system—because no one in power is actually looking after the interests of ordinary people (jobs, health care, future energy security through alternatives, etc.). And without a common vision, chaos ensues... So, is the answer to trust in the lesser of rogue evils (in this case Obama), or to create a common vision for America as a true world leader, not some proto-corporatist empire behaving like a common international thug?
ReplyDeleteRtL:
ReplyDelete"Our "war on terror" is not a declared war in the traditional sense; "
We haven't had one of those since 1945, but the fight with al Qaeda has, with due process, given the president the power to wage war and I think this fact is being ignored. Yes, we have participated in war crimes trials, way back when, but those occurred after the state of war no longer existed. This isn't a traditional criminal we're dealing with either, it's a political entity dedicated to destroying the Western world.
Sheria:
"when the enemy is captured and is unarmed we don't shoot them down in cold blood"
Earth, cover not my blood, And let my cry have no resting-place.
-Job 16:18-
Blood doesn't cool that quickly and there's 20 years wort of it crying without rest. OBL was not captured nor did he surrender nor did he cease to plot.
In any other military conflict, when we burst into a bunker, we come in shooting on the assumption that an enemy would do the same. I really think that the portrayal of the family man, suspected of a crime, being gunned down in his living room is not well founded. At any rate, I don't share it.
As to the moral outrage at having killed "innocent" associates of Osama, I would remind all that no flag of truce was flying, no one was in a position of surrender and all those who choose to associate with as well as to aid, abet and hide bin Laden knowingly assumed the risk of dying with him as accessories before and after the fact of mass murder. They were warned as Pakistann was warned and Afghanistan was warned.
I assume they were aware that this man has killed many thousands here and abroad over a period of more than two decades.
If he had offered to surrender, I might feel otherwise, but he offered to die a martyr and an unrepentant and still active murderer. His son's blood is upon him, not on Obama.
Elizabeth:
Well, since we did invade Iraq and for contrived reasons, I would have to say that Saddam's government would feel itself justified in trying to get Bush. They did try to defend themselves, hopeless as it was. There's the story about him trying to kill Bush I of course, but remember, we never attacked al Qaeda before they attacked us and attacking us was an incontrovertible act of war. We did not bomb Saudi Arabia. Osama was not an Iraqi or a friend of Saddam.
Congress has deemed this conflict to be a war and as far as I'm concerned there was therefore legal basis enough to do what we did, just as there was legal support for bombing Tokyo in 1942 instead of trying to arrest the Emperor.
As far as Chomsky being our conscience, my own conscience stubbornly refuses to join in his jihad or accept his refusal that we have forever lost the right, as American citizens, to morally condemn anything anyone else does, no matter how hideous and that all our inherited sins can never be made up for. Yes, of course, he says things I agree with, and yes, of course I have cursed our governments and presidents and our history is full of ugliness but his judgements seem to be based on rage and hatred and lust for vengeance just as much as those of Limbaugh and when I say that we as Liberals have to be careful to question our sources, motivations and firm beliefs, it's people like him I'm thinking of.
I still don't understand why this is being presented as though it was some sort of extra-legal treatment of a domestic crime suspect and I'm withdrawing from this. These are difference too fundamental to reach agreement. Just be aware that most Muslims as well as most everyone else feels something hideous has been removed from the world.
Tutti,
ReplyDeleteHere’s a simple-lizard perspective that might bridge some of the gap: bin Laden was an extraordinary case that we can hope will prove the exception to the rule. There aren’t that many UBL’s in the world, and the overwhelming majority of souls on this planet are no doubt glad he’s gone. I’ll agree with Sheria, Elizabeth and Edge and others that we certainly shouldn’t make a practice of blasting our enemies into the next world without arrest and trial. Governments that freely wield that sort of power are quite likely to turn it on their own people; they quickly develop a taste for the extralegal and the sadistic. Ordinarily, I would “demand the arrestment of the knaves and dastards,” to borrow a phrase from Thomas Carlyle, and whenever possible that’s what I think we should do.
Above all, if we want the terrorism problem to subside, we need to engage in major outreach: get off the fossil fuels, show due regard for other people around the world with our foreign aid initiatives (which are pathetically small even though most Americans think we spend damn near all of our money on impoverished ingrates in Africa and South America), and act like good citizens. Support (in suitably non-overbearing ways) the desire for genuine democracy in the Middle East rather than the oil-drenched autocracies we have been favoring for so long.
When we treat others well, it comes back to us and those who want to spew bullets and hateful ideologies cannot gain traction. In government, there are times when Machiavelli’s advice about “not being good” and Malcolm X’s prescription “by any means necessary” are what a leader must follow, but ultimately, MLK Jr. was right: “the old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.” That wisdom should guide the conduct of nations insofar as possible.
Most respectfully agree with you, dino.
ReplyDeleteCaptain (and Octo from the other thread, and all), this is not about pitying and mourning Osama's death.
ReplyDeleteThis is about how he was disposed of, what followed (i.e., unending stream of lies and jingoist gloating), and what it says about us, as Americans and human beings.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteNow I know you are aware that no amount of lies or jingoist gloating could possibly say anything about ME as a human being.I claim an exemption based on species.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteDitto that species exemption from the cephalopod. Nevertheless, point taken. Those of us who are non-human learned long ago never to expect perfection from creatures whose only up-righteous ability is to walk upright and snatch away other people’s bananas.
Edge: "... common vision ..."
ReplyDeleteI advise caution on that 'common vision' thing. How often in the course of human history has 'common vision' been enforced at the point of a gun?
"...this is not about pitying and mourning Osama's death.
ReplyDeleteThis is about how he was disposed of, what followed (i.e., unending stream of lies and jingoist gloating), and what it says about us, as Americans and human beings."
Ditto.
A trial, why? To ascertain innocence or guilt? Already known. To determine whether he should be put to death? A foregone conclusion. That would have been equivalent to a kangaroo court, a show trial, and created a unholy and dangerous groundswell of radical support in certain quarters of the Islamic world.
ReplyDeleteThe guilt or innocence of too many caught up in the post 9/11 frenzy was in doubt--I abhor their endless detention and certainly their torture. They are in American hands,all the facts are not in hand, they are entitled to due process and a defense. Guantanomo should be closed and all trials held swiftly in American courts.
OBL fell into an entirely different category, more akin to the dictator of North Korea. Kim Jong-Il has starved million so his own people and put hundreds and thousands of them in concentration camps. If the Navy Seals, you or I or anybody in the world had a chance to take him out, I would hope they wouldn't fret about "due process." When it comes to war criminals--blatant, self-confessed, mass murdering gangsters--honoring legal niceties can actually be a miscarriage of justice. And frankly, I would consider NOT executing Kim Il Jong--or Osama Bin Laden--if one had the chance, the far more uncivilized alternative.
If I could go back to pre-war Germany, it would not be to serve Hitler a subpoena from the future. It would be to plug him between the eyes. Wouldn't you?
And politically, it's mot as if Obama had the remotest choice. What exactly would you have ordered? Extradition proceedings? Kidnapping? Can you imagine going to the American people saying "we know where OBL is and we have to wait for Pakistan to turn him over?" Would kidnapping have been any more legal? Btw, we didn't shoot Hussein, we arrested him. There's no proof the SEALS wouldn't have done the same if OBL had surrendered.
Its a strange day indeed when I defend the President's choices while you attack them.
Hi Mark, glad that you dropped by!
ReplyDeleteAt the Nuremburg trials, the majority of the defendants' guilt was certain before the trials even began. So why did we conduct trials? Because the civilized world wanted to make a distinction as to our ethical standards and those of the Nazis. We could have just shot the all but instead we chose to work through the justice system. The police do a reasonably decent job in tracking down criminals; I'd hazard a guess that there is no doubt as to the guilt at least one-third to one-half of the people who are tried in our courts. By your definition, we hold kangaroo courts all the time. I'd disagree with that because I don't think that due process is unimportant nor should it ever be dismissed. It's the foundation of our legal system and it's not situational. The President knows this better than anyone; he is a part of that legal system and he took a vow to uphold it as did I. I criticize him because for the first time I feel that he has betrayed his own ethics and I am terribly disappointed in him.
No, I wouldn't shoot Hitler if I could time travel. I would try and reveal to the German people where his leadership was taking them, stir up a revolution of the people. Killing one man is no guarantee that the horrors of WWII wouldn't have happened. Hitler didn't exist in a vacuum and he couldn't have taken Germany to hell if the German people, and to some extent, the rest of the world hadn't allowed him to do so. The Holocaust didn't happen overnight. The conditions that set it into motion played out over a period of years beginning with post WWI sanctions against Germany. My focus wouldn't be on Hitler; it would be on the mindset of the German people that made them ripe for cultivation by a Hitler.
Everyone uses the same example. Why not Attila the Hun?
Honey, they'd throw your non-Aryan ass in a concentration camp so fast it's made your head swim.
ReplyDeleteThere was a team ready to take Osama alive had he surrended. I simply don't get what you would have done differently if you were Obama
Had Hitler been killed, the war would have ended earlier and millions of lives would have been saved. I think you just can't bear the idea of killing someone...Not me...Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Half the SS - I'd have done it with pleasure. So many Nazis just blended into post-war Germany, never seeing justice. And Pol Pot, who got to die in his bed. That's just wrong.
The holocaust, if we must call it that, began with Constantine and the Council of Nicea in my opinion, but nobody needed to inform the German people where they were going, they were eager to go there. I could argue in fact that our unwillingness to take action until it was almost too late was this very sort of moralizing about justice and fairness and the role of diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the love of God, there is no reason to say that if we shot Osama, we're going to start shooting criminal suspects on sight or give up on justice. That's Tea Party reasoning.
For the last time, the Nürnberg trials were held after the war, after we stopped killing Nazis on sight and mostly to illustrate to the world just how evil these people were and to allow Europe to have a hand in punishing their conquerors. They didn't prevent the American Nazi Party or stop the racism or persecutions elsewhere. A bullet in Hitler's head brought on the surrender, not a kind word or a process server or a silver tongued diplomat. How many people would be listened to in they complained that we forced poor Adolph to kill himself and his wife? Yet here we are, sympathizing with the Devil
You don't end a war with lawyers and subpoenas and you don't survive by assuming they will ever play by any rules at all and that one's rights can't be abrogated by murdering millions.
There is no perfect justice and that does not argue for suicidal self-restraint, for fear we might be somewhat unfair to an unrepentant and active killer. Justice, ethics, morality are, as any human construct, what we say they are, no more no less -- and morality was made for man, not man for morality and if anyone wants to become so non-violent and assume so much disregard for their own survival, they'll turn the other cheek when their neighbors are murdered, it's a free country, but I don't agree with it, I don't understand it, I don't condone it.
Wait... I'm not Sheria, but honey? Seriously?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteI give up. My arguments aren't treated with respect but rather as the addlepated ramblings of a gentle soul who can't bring herself to sanction violence. My real point is that no single individual is ever responsible for mass killings or genocide. Not bin Laden and not Hitler. As such, the killing of any one individual resolves nothing except providing us with a momentary feeling of vindication. We got into the war in Iraq because we needed to take vengeance on someone for 9/11, anyone, regardless of whether that someone ahd anything to do with 9/11. I am lacking in one thing--testosterone; however, my reasoning powers are just fine. At every point in history, in every society that has made justice,ethics, and morality relative, the result has been an erosion of the rights and freedoms of the people. Justce, ethics, and morailty are not mere concepts to be disregardied when they are inconvenient. Creating our own subjective and ever shifting definitons of these concepts has fueled wars, and human rights abuses throughout recorded history. Both Hitler and bin lAden were masters of situational ethics and relative morality, as are most despots. As I've said repeatedly, I haven't shed a tear over bin Laden; it isn't his death to which I object; it is the weakening of our ethical foundation that I mourn.
P.S. To be fair to Mark, I should explain that we are personal friends and his use of "honey" is flippantly affectionate, similat to gorfriend or honey chile (long "i" in southern parlance).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still think that he missed my point.
Thanks for the explanation, Sheria. I thought as much ("Mark better be Sheria's BFF, or else") by the way of marveling on his peculiar turn of a phrase.
ReplyDeleteAs to deaf ears surrounding you, if that's any consolation(?), I consider your thoughtful, well-reasoned, eloquent and morally informed comments on the matter not only to be spot-on, but also among the very best in the Zone.
And I know a few people who read Zone's posts and discussions, but do not comment on-blog, and they agree with me, but more importantly, with you.
BTW, if you have time, read Glenn Greenwald's post(s).
Sheria,
ReplyDeletePlease don't give up on the old cephalopod (or the hyooman counterparts of the realm). Your arguments are not lost on me. You and Elizabeth have always been the most eloquent voices of conscience in these waters ... and always appreciated!
There have been numerous ethical and moral lapses throughout American history, and I never intend to be dismissive of them. Nevertheless, the nation has also recovered and moved on (praise Allah).
Sometimes there are also crimes of passion, a violent lashing out by otherwise normal and civilized people who have been brutalized and traumatized. What you say of bin Laden can also be said of Hitler. Neither held the gun that killed thousands or scores of millions, but the lack of gunpowder on their hands does not exonerate them. Would we be able to defeat Hitler today if we applied a rigorous standard to warfare? Could Gandhi defeat Hitler? I am sure these questions will continue to vex us for generations.
If there were indeed an ethical violation (which I will neither affirm nor deny), I have to put this violation into context and forgive what we have done; I see no other choice.
Furthermore, what shall we do next year? Not vote for President Obama? Considering the horror show of what the Republican Party has become, and their immoral legislative agenda, I must cast my vote for President Obama ... no matter what kind of 'justice' has been served on Osama bin Laden.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteOf course you are right, and I would never, never, never presume to contradict you! BTW, is there another term of endearment you would prefer?
Your faithful cephalopod,
Octopus
My dear Octo, before Sheria responds: yes, crimes of passion happen every day.
ReplyDeleteBut a long-planned -- by the most powerful government and military on Earth -- assassination of the world's most wanted man should not be an expression of our primitive and hard-to-resist passions. I would say that we should expect better of our government than succumb to lynch mob methods of meting out justice.
I strongly recommend Greenwald's post linked in my comment above. In it, he quotes the lead Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson who said the following (among other important things):
The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.
(...)
Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law."
Octo: darling is fine with me, my sweat pea.
ReplyDeleteSweet pea. Sweet.
ReplyDeleteThat English is a funny language. (Or so I say to excuse my sloppy spelling.)
(Beaming: My heart goes pitter patter)
ReplyDeleteDarling Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Glenn Greenwald link. I do see your point, and Greenwald’s point, about a trial for bin Laden as a missed opportunity. A tribunal would accomplish what the United Nations and the Hague have failed to do thus far: Establish an international body of law that affirms the right of all civilians to live free of terrorism. Furthermore, it would help resolve this controversy: One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.
Still, established precedents are all too easily ignored and violated. The accomplishments of Nuremburg did not stop crimes of genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda, or rape in the Congo, or the mutilation of women in Afghanistan and Africa.
By all accounts, even by self-admission, the Bush/Cheney administration engaged in torture euphemistically justified and dismissed as ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Yet, these former officials have not been called to account. Is it even possible, given the politics and laws of this nation?
I am very interested in reading Sheria’s feedback on this hypothetical scenario: Suppose we indicted Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others for torture and war crimes. Would a partisan backlash trigger a constitutional crisis … or civil war? Would every former administration be subject to prosecution, tit for tat, by the next one, thus triggering a cycle of political tribunals with every change in government? Is this what former President Ford had in mind when he pardoned Richard Nixon?
Suppose Nixon were brought to trial? Would the precedent of a trial prevent the abuses of the Bush/Cheney administration? Perhaps all ethical considerations are situational at best rather than absolute given what we have to work with.
My point here is not to dismiss your argument. I certainly agree, and we can all agree on the wish for a more perfect world. Nonetheless, I must also ask the octo-practical-pus question: What is possible or doable given the exigencies of constitutional law and democracy by rabble? Regrettably, I think our options are limited at best.
Yes, I agree that this was a missed opportunity; and perhaps over time, President Obama will come to the same conclusion. However, what I see now is a far greater threat than a medieval caliphate that is not likely to happen: The rise of proto-fascism within own ranks. That is why, at least in my own humble mollusk mind, I am willing to forgive and move on as quickly as possible.
I really have to start proofreading before I hit post! I'm at work, and posting in between waiting for bills to arrive on my desk. "similat to gorfriend" = similar to girlfriend."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Elizabeth for the recommendation. I highly recommend that no matter where you come down on this issue that you read Greenwald's article. The link is in one of Elizabeth's comments above.
Not to worry Octo, I'm not giving up in the larger sense of the term, just withdrawing from this particular battle. Just one more thing...
I have no issue with criticizing the president and continuing to support him. He's a big boy; he can take a critique of his actions.
I repeat again, it's not about bin Laden, it's about our ethical standards as a country. By all the government released accounts, there was no return gunfire from bin Laden; he didn't have a weapon. Some folks keep asserting that he didn't surrender? What does that mean; he didn't throw himself on the ground at the feet of the Navy SEALS? The bigger question is what did he do that was threatening to the extent that there was a necessity to open fire? So far, not a single government report has alleged any hostile move on his part.
Did he throw a vase at a SEAL's head or brandish brass knuckles? Surely his presence alone wasn't so intimidating that they feared for their lives. If there were factors that prompted the use of deadly force, why not just say so?
Why was shooting him necessary? Why not take him into custody and demonstrate to the terrorists, those lawless terrorists how civilized nations behave when confronted with lawless acts?
What about the other victims, the collateral damage? Is that the American way, to shrug off collateral damage?
I am impressed with the words from Nuremburg prosecutor Jackson that Elizabeth cites. That was my point exactly about the significance of the Nuremburg trials and it matters not one whit that the trials took place after the war had ended. We had a chance to demonstrate that we are far better tnan the accusations hurled at us by not just terrorists but by others as well. We had a chance to demonstrate that we adhere to the moral high road at all times, not just when it's convenient to do so. We had the opportunity to distinguish how we fundamentally differ from the terrorists and we blew it.
Is life as we know it coming to an end? I doubt it, in spite of the Mayan calendar predictions. However, we do need to do some serious soul searching and ask ourselves is this the image that we want to cultivate, a nation that insists that the rule of law is paramount and sharply critiques human rights violation by others but when our backs were to the wall, when it really mattered succumbed to the oldest behavior of humankind--vengeance at all costs. Our soul isn't lost but it is most definitely tarnished.
On paper, I agree that assassination as justice is bad. As a practical exercise, a trial was never in the cards. Republicans made sure of that. Look at the fiasco of the attempted trail of KSM in NYC. They have a saying down south "he needed killin'" I guess I'm on board with that sentiment in the case of all Taliban and Al-Queada terrorists.
ReplyDeleteSheria,
ReplyDeleteThis lizard absolutely loves your posts! They are always eloquent and insightful, and I read them with great care. I'm equally absolutely delighted that Elizabeth is posting her witty rejoinders to my walnut-brained effusions.
By the way, I think the "would you kill Hitler after you hopped out of your time machine" question is sort of a red herring. I mean, come on -- it's a Star Trek construction we put out to avoid the grey areas. Multiple impossibilities at play there. I would probably start an argument with him over the quality of the strudel at the restaurant where we were eating, and end up capping him. But in truth, he wouldn't yet BE the horrible monster we know he became, but instead a confused, rejected art student, or something like that, so I'd just be capping a man over strudel. Which is reason enough. But seriously, the real question about violence is more difficult, no?
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI read Greenwald’s point of view and pretty much agree with it: my own Machiavellian emphasis aside, I agree that the facts of OBL’s killing matter. At some point, the Admin evidently decided that it wouldn’t put out any more details because it couldn’t get its story straight. The press’s response to that should have been “Oh, hell no!” It’s true that the press hasn’t really done its job, which is what I think Greenwald is implying – their attitude has been that of the general public: “who gives a triceratops pile how it happened?” The press should want to know the truth, even if it ends up saying what happened is perfectly acceptable. Anything else is a priori complicity in jingoism.
Octo, just read your intriguing questions. Alas, it's late and I'm going to bed but I will give your scenarios my full attention in the bright light of day tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI never feel unappreciated here but thank you dino for the reassurance. Quite frankly, I think being willing to discuss the ethics of this matter is a significant positive step in addressing who we are as a nation. I would like to see this debate taking place on a national stage. I think that it's the willingness to not seek answers that Greenwald addresses that is what frustrates me the most.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteSince you're one of my heroes, I'm not likely to feel disrespect for your opinions, but this is one place in which I'm so far from agreement that's it's not worth my stating further objections.
You see this as a cowardly political assassination, and I see it as a small battle in a larger and continuing war, in which we have to remove enemies one by one rather than sending huge armies to destroy countries. We can't stop them by killing one, but we can't stop them by arresting them all either - and we need to stop them if we want to survive.
Sorry, that's just the way I see it, sad to say.
Dino,
I also hold the press accountable for much of this turmoil. The government has been slow to tell us details, but what we've been hearing isn't as much their reticence as the speculations and inventions of networks intent on keeping the public from turning back to sports. We still don't have all the facts and I'm sure some are going to be withheld because they would interfere with using all that intelligence we captured.
But when I see the bin Laden family threatening to sue and the press getting fat on selling Osama as a "victim" I'm almost ready to declare war on TV news. They'd promote a civil war just to sell air time, and perhaps that's exactly what they're doing.
Captain Fogg,
ReplyDeleteI think you and I are in agreement about this issue -- neither of us is troubled by Mr. bin Laden's demise. But what I was getting at just above wasn't releasing sensitive information but rather the relative failure to provide an accurate basic account of what happened. That was Greenwald's point: why doesn't anyone even care how it went down? That's something the press should want to know just because it's their job, but they've mostly stopped asking, too. The Right just prefers to lie and deny about all issues, of course, but from liberals in the news, one expects something a bit better than breathless cheerleading and/or embarrassed silence.
Dino: sounds very much like the liberal media approach to the entry into the war in Iraq.... a pattern?
ReplyDeleteIt's getting increasingly difficult to continue this discussion, I think, since we just largely continue to rehash our respective POV, digging in our heels. Also, my already compromised attention span makes it challenging to retain who said what and when.
ReplyDeleteTo add to the confusion, Captain's comment directed to Octo, which arrived in my mailbox this morn, is not on the thread. One thing from that comment, however, caught my waning attention -- and that's Captain's justified call for facts, rather than opinions.
Captain, you said:
Let's get the facts straight. The president sent commandos to kill or capture if possible. It didn't work out that way and we at this point do not know why. Yet the opinions were aired with conviction within moments and long before any facts emerged.
Why are we arguing as though that weren't the case?
Because it wasn't the case. Obama signed an order to kill Osama, something that has been widely reported in non-American press.
That's not surprising -- the order itself, and the fact that we have to learn about it from foreign media. And the reluctance to admit as much -- that the SEALs went in with the order to kill OBL -- on the part of Obama's administration is quite likely behind the botched PR after the raid.
It would have been much simpler to just tell the truth to the populace rather than lie, undermining the already wobbly trust in anything government-related.
On the other hand, the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the administration didn't get its story straight, concealed the kill order, and created several false narratives to explain its actions, is a proof, however feeble, that its people still possess a conscience (or fear of consequences of their actions -- which suggests traces of conscience), even if compromised.
Edge and Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteYes, "pattern" is the word. The link you include doesn't work anymore, Elizabeth. But you bring up a great point: those of us on the lib-side should be reading something beyond the American press. Dust off that French, Italian, Deutsch, or whatever: eel faut save wire kiss key see pass, ness-paw? If you just read or lissen-up the American news, I'm sorry to say, you may well be reading either flat-out propaganda or something so filtered through ideological assumptions that it's damned near worthless, at best.
Edge, of course it's a pattern. Our M$M are cheering squads for their sponsors and our government -- or political parties, as is the case with FOX. All news (or, in the case of American M$M, what passes for news) is propaganda -- that's why it's so important to read between the lines and question everything.
ReplyDeleteThe complicity of the press in the run-up to Iraq invasion was unforgivable. I see the same process at work now, after OBL assassination. Captain says that 'the press [is] getting fat on selling Osama as a "victim"' -- and I wonder if we read/watch the same media, because I see something quite the contrary: jingoism squared and unmitigated bloodlust. I guess we all see what we are sensitized to notice.
But apropos the shameless complicity of the press, I urge you to read the piece Sheria referenced earlier in the thread, The Death Agony of American Democracy. If our democracy is dying -- and it is (if it wasn't really stillborn) -- our media are shamelessly complicit in its demise.
That's why I no longer read or watch M$M if I can help it.
Here is the link, Dino.
ReplyDeleteBy omission, I cut off the last letters from the earlier one, so it failed.
But you can do your own search, of course -- Obama April 29 kill order, or anything along those lines, and see what comes up.
Thanks, btw, Dino, for pointing out the missing link.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteYou are most welcome, and thanks for the link. I read through the article: I believe it asserts a claim in its title that is not in the article itself. The phrase "kill order" appears in the title, but that language appears nowhere in the text, so far as I can tell. The language there is something like, "bring Osama bin Laden to justice." It is also said that the "objective" was achieved. I don't see that anything is really settled by the article. But when time permits, I will certainly look up the issue in as much detail as I can find.
Washington: US President Barack Obama signed the death warrant for the world's most wanted man Osama bin-Laden on April 29, after months of preparations and meticulous planning against the highest-value target.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the death warrant synonymous with a kill order, Dino?
The following might be of interest:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/goal-was-never-to-capture-bin-laden/238330/
I just copied the link from a Michael Moore letter that arrived in my inbox, lazy lizard that I am.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure -- it sounds to me like a journalist's caption-style characterization of an order (like the title), not the language of the order itself. The distinction is vital. To know what happened, you would need access to the official language or to credible sources who had seen it. I rather doubt it's anything so forthright as "this is Osama's death warrant" or "kill him dead no matter what." That would be very incautious and unlawyerly.
Dino, please note that the report of the death warrant or kill order is based on the interview with a senior administration official who's remained nameless. So it's not just a journalist's interpretation of loosely known facts or conjecture, I'd say, but a direct relation from a person in-the-know, most likely somebody involved in the operation, as evidenced by the detailed timeline of the WH proceedings s/he provided to the press.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Atlantic link, Dino.
ReplyDeleteThis from the article (interesting, IMO):
The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.
And:
Bin Laden's killing was criticized by several European and United Nations officials on Tuesday, with critics of the operation seizing on the fact that the militant was unarmed and could have theoretically been safely taken into custody. Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV that the U.S. raid was "quite clearly a violation of international law" and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial.
Dino, I like Michael Moore's letter, a lot. It expresses my sentiments almost exactly, especially this part:
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.
The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.*
And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.
*Emphasis mine.
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteYes, we're all repeating ourselves and that's not going to change, so what's the point?
I'm not persuaded by any of this conjecture that the mission was only to kill him. I'm not offended that he was killed and I don't think doing so wasn't what nearly country under attack wouldn't do. Sure you're going to find the usual suspects condemning us and the same unnamed sources and foreign papers and Michael Moore who always condemn us. For what it's worth, and that's not much, the Enquirer is running a headline blaring: "insisting Osama cried and begged for his life." Nobody really knows and everybody is marshaling quotes and links and theorizing to promote their point of view. It's way too soon still and it was surely more too soon when this started hours after the announcement.
So Obama signed a "kill order." What did it actually say? I think he was required to in order to protect the SEALS in case they had to shoot him and that doesn't mean the order actually read "kill him on sight" but I doubt that any of the media has read it for themselves. And I doubt these conclusions based on speculation.
"and could have theoretically been safely taken into custody."
Theoretically, yes, that's what I mean and so much of this rests on theoretical assumptions by people who are inferring and speculating and giving anonymous opinions so one has to be skeptical.
I must remain adamant that this was a military action against an active participant in a war against us and rules of civil justice do not reply. Nor do I think anyone has to establish that crimes against humanity were committed, nor do I think much of what he is guilty of would be brought out in any trial since much is classified for good reason. The same applied 65 years ago. And of course, it really didn't work anyway since holocaust denial is still with us. I'm willing to bet that if any of these men could have been shot by a sniper during the war, they would have been and nary a tear shed.
What was the name of the Japanese general we shot out of the sky as he was traveling in an unarmed plane? It helped us win the war sooner and I'm glad it happened. Where was Mr. Moore to cry foul?
This is the last I'm going to say about this. Sorry to disagree, but I honestly and firmly and passionately do, as much as I like you all.
Edge, I'm sorry for asking, but are you being sarcastic again?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry because I've obviously spent too much time on this issue and on politics in general, and have to admit that I can no longer distinguish who's sayin what and why.
Clearly it's time for me to go back to what I like and understand best: puppies.
Yup, there is proof of my confusion, as if one was needed. I took Captain's comment as Edge's. Sigh. Time to tune out. Puppies it'll be from now on.
ReplyDeleteBlogger appears to have swallowed some of our comments. Perhaps they will return.
ReplyDeleteI hope Blogger gets a serious case of indigestion ... (hiccup).
ReplyDeleteI don't think our lost comments will return. Too bad, this was an excellent thread.
ReplyDeleteThis Iceberg on the Sea of Ethics has stuck with me. Or struck me. The question is, how far is America willing to let its collective and political ethics slide in the interests of instrumental utilitarianism?
Ethics are an inheritance and a legacy we pass on to future generations, if I have it right. So the ethics of the past is inextricable from our present ethical choices, and in that way, ethics is additive.
So, relative to ethics, we have the US manipulation of politics in the Middle East for more than a half century (essentially appointing and maintaining despots to get their oil). Then there's the US support of Israel and the ethical quagmire of its existence in the region—and its sometimes severe treatment of those it displaced. And then there's bin Laden, the rich boy who takes his money and finances the guerrilla fighters, first against the Soviets in Afghanistan, then against the US presence across the Middle East, including his home country, Saudi Arabia.
So, when someone finally fights back against US domination and oppression by killing Americans, he's the enemy, of course. He's smacked the giant. And America fights back with all the amnesia it can muster.
OK. So now Mr. bin Laden experienced the obvious reaction to his actions. Still, the ethical question remains, "would it not have been better to capture him and expose him for what he is?"
Sure, there are issues around "how" the US might have done these things. But the most important ethical question now is not "what" should have been done, or "how" should it have been done, but "why" was it done?
So, why? (And are the answers to the "why" ethically defensible from the government's POV?)
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteDarling Elizabeth,
Thanks for the Glenn Greenwald link. I do see your point, and Greenwald’s point, about a trial for bin Laden as a missed opportunity. A tribunal would accomplish what the United Nations and the Hague have failed to do thus far: Establish an international body of law that affirms the right of all civilians to live free of terrorism. Furthermore, it would help resolve this controversy: One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.
Still, established precedents are all too easily ignored and violated. The accomplishments of Nuremburg did not stop crimes of genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda, or rape in the Congo, or the mutilation of women in Afghanistan and Africa.
By all accounts, even by self-admission, the Bush/Cheney administration engaged in torture euphemistically justified and dismissed as ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Yet, these former officials have not been called to account. Is it even possible, given the politics and laws of this nation?
I am very interested in reading Sheria’s feedback on this hypothetical scenario: Suppose we indicted Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others for torture and war crimes. Would a partisan backlash trigger a constitutional crisis … or civil war? Would every former administration be subject to prosecution, tit for tat, by the next one, thus triggering a cycle of political tribunals with every change in government? Is this what former President Ford had in mind when he pardoned Richard Nixon?
Suppose Nixon were brought to trial? Would the precedent of a trial prevent the abuses of the Bush/Cheney administration? Perhaps all ethical considerations are situational at best rather than absolute given what we have to work with.
My point here is not to dismiss your argument. I certainly agree, and we can all agree on the wish for a more perfect world. Nonetheless, I must also ask the octo-practical-pus question: What is possible or doable given the exigencies of constitutional law and democracy by rabble? Regrettably, I think our options are limited at best.
Yes, I agree that this was a missed opportunity; and perhaps over time, President Obama will come to the same conclusion. However, what I see now is a far greater threat than a medieval caliphate that is not likely to happen: The rise of proto-fascism within own ranks. That is why, at least in my own humble mollusk mind, I am willing to forgive and move on as quickly as possible.
Posted by Octopus to THE SWASH ZONE at 6:23 PM, May 11, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteSheria has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
I really have to start proofreading before I hit post! I'm at work, and posting in between waiting for bills to arrive on my desk. "similat to gorfriend" = similar to girlfriend."
Thanks, Elizabeth for the recommendation. I highly recommend that no matter where you come down on this issue that you read Greenwald's article. The link is in one of Elizabeth's comments above.
Not to worry Octo, I'm not giving up in the larger sense of the term, just withdrawing from this particular battle. Just one more thing...
I have no issue with criticizing the president and continuing to support him. He's a big boy; he can take a critique of his actions.
I repeat again, it's not about bin Laden, it's about our ethical standards as a country. By all the government released accounts, there was no return gunfire from bin Laden; he didn't have a weapon. Some folks keep asserting that he didn't surrender? What does that mean; he didn't throw himself on the ground at the feet of the Navy SEALS? The bigger question is what did he do that was threatening to the extent that there was a necessity to open fire? So far, not a single government report has alleged any hostile move on his part.
Did he throw a vase at a SEAL's head or brandish brass knuckles? Surely his presence alone wasn't so intimidating that they feared for their lives. If there were factors that prompted the use of deadly force, why not just say so?
Why was shooting him necessary? Why not take him into custody and demonstrate to the terrorists, those lawless terrorists how civilized nations behave when confronted with lawless acts?
What about the other victims, the collateral damage? Is that the American way, to shrug off collateral damage?
I am impressed with the words from Nuremburg prosecutor Jackson that Elizabeth cites. That was my point exactly about the significance of the Nuremburg trials and it matters not one whit that the trials took place after the war had ended. We had a chance to demonstrate that we are far better tnan the accusations hurled at us by not just terrorists but by others as well. We had a chance to demonstrate that we adhere to the moral high road at all times, not just when it's convenient to do so. We had the opportunity to distinguish how we fundamentally differ from the terrorists and we blew it.
Is life as we know it coming to an end? I doubt it, in spite of the Mayan calendar predictions. However, we do need to do some serious soul searching and ask ourselves is this the image that we want to cultivate, a nation that insists that the rule of law is paramount and sharply critiques human rights violation by others but when our backs were to the wall, when it really mattered succumbed to the oldest behavior of humankind--vengeance at all costs. Our soul isn't lost but it is most definitely tarnished.
Posted by Sheria to THE SWASH ZONE at 7:22 PM, May 11, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Sheria,
This lizard absolutely loves your posts! They are always eloquent and insightful, and I read them with great care. I'm equally absolutely delighted that Elizabeth is posting her witty rejoinders to my walnut-brained effusions.
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:11 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
By the way, I think the "would you kill Hitler after you hopped out of your time machine" question is sort of a red herring. I mean, come on -- it's a Star Trek construction we put out to avoid the grey areas. Multiple impossibilities at play there. I would probably start an argument with him over the quality of the strudel at the restaurant where we were eating, and end up capping him. But in truth, he wouldn't yet BE the horrible monster we know he became, but instead a confused, rejected art student, or something like that, so I'd just be capping a man over strudel. Which is reason enough. But seriously, the real question about violence is more difficult, no?
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:21 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteTim has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
On paper, I agree that assassination as justice is bad. As a practical exercise, a trial was never in the cards. Republicans made sure of that. Look at the fiasco of the attempted trail of KSM in NYC. They have a saying down south "he needed killin'" I guess I'm on board with that sentiment in the case of all Taliban and Al-Queada terrorists.
Posted by Tim to THE SWASH ZONE at 11:38 PM, May 11, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Elizabeth,
I read Greenwald’s point of view and pretty much agree with it: my own Machiavellian emphasis aside, I agree that the facts of OBL’s killing matter. At some point, the Admin evidently decided that it wouldn’t put out any more details because it couldn’t get its story straight. The press’s response to that should have been “Oh, hell no!” It’s true that the press hasn’t really done its job, which is what I think Greenwald is implying – their attitude has been that of the general public: “who gives a triceratops pile how it happened?” The press should want to know the truth, even if it ends up saying what happened is perfectly acceptable. Anything else is a priori complicity in jingoism.
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 1:38 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteSheria has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Octo, just read your intriguing questions. Alas, it's late and I'm going to bed but I will give your scenarios my full attention in the bright light of day tomorrow.
I never feel unappreciated here but thank you dino for the reassurance. Quite frankly, I think being willing to discuss the ethics of this matter is a significant positive step in addressing who we are as a nation. I would like to see this debate taking place on a national stage. I think that it's the willingness to not seek answers that Greenwald addresses that is what frustrates me the most.
Posted by Sheria to THE SWASH ZONE at 2:45 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteCaptain Fogg has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Sheria,
Since you're one of my heroes, I'm not likely to feel disrespect for your opinions, but this is one place in which I'm so far from agreement that's it's not worth my stating further objections.
You see this as a cowardly political assassination, and I see it as a small battle in a larger and continuing war, in which we have to remove enemies one by one rather than sending huge armies to destroy countries. We can't stop them by killing one, but we can't stop them by arresting them all either - and we need to stop them if we want to survive.
Sorry, that's just the way I see it, sad to say.
Dino,
I also hold the press accountable for much of this turmoil. The government has been slow to tell us details, but what we've been hearing isn't as much their reticence as the speculations and inventions of networks intent on keeping the public from turning back to sports. We still don't have all the facts and I'm sure some are going to be withheld because they would interfere with using all that intelligence we captured.
But when I see the bin Laden family threatening to sue and the press getting fat on selling Osama as a "victim" I'm almost ready to declare war on TV news. They'd promote a civil war just to sell air time, and perhaps that's exactly what they're doing.
Posted by Captain Fogg to THE SWASH ZONE at 8:11 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Captain Fogg,
I think you and I are in agreement about this issue -- neither of us is troubled by Mr. bin Laden's demise. But what I was getting at just above wasn't releasing sensitive information but rather the relative failure to provide an accurate basic account of what happened. That was Greenwald's point: why doesn't anyone even care how it went down? That's something the press should want to know just because it's their job, but they've mostly stopped asking, too. The Right just prefers to lie and deny about all issues, of course, but from liberals in the news, one expects something a bit better than breathless cheerleading and/or embarrassed silence.
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 10:48 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteThe Edge Columns has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Dino: sounds very much like the liberal media approach to the entry into the war in Iraq.... a pattern?
Posted by The Edge Columns to THE SWASH ZONE at 10:54 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
It's getting increasingly difficult to continue this discussion, I think, since we just largely continue to rehash our respective POV, digging in our heels. Also, my already compromised attention span makes it challenging to retain who said what and when.
To add to the confusion, Captain's comment directed to Octo, which arrived in my mailbox this morn, is not on the thread. One thing from that comment, however, caught my waning attention -- and that's Captain's justified call for facts, rather than opinions.
Captain, you said:
Let's get the facts straight. The president sent commandos to kill or capture if possible. It didn't work out that way and we at this point do not know why. Yet the opinions were aired with conviction within moments and long before any facts emerged.
Why are we arguing as though that weren't the case?
Because it wasn't the case. Obama signed an order to kill Osama, something that has been widely reported in non-American press.
That's not surprising -- the order itself, and the fact that we have to learn about it from foreign media. And the reluctance to admit as much -- that the SEALs went in with the order to kill OBL -- on the part of Obama's administration is quite likely behind the botched PR after the raid.
It would have been much simpler to just tell the truth to the populace rather than lie, undermining the already wobbly trust in anything government-related.
On the other hand, the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the administration didn't get its story straight, concealed the kill order, and created several false narratives to explain its actions, is a proof, however feeble, that its people still possess a conscience (or fear of consequences of their actions -- which suggests traces of conscience), even if compromised.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 11:06 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Edge and Elizabeth,
Yes, "pattern" is the word. The link you include doesn't work anymore, Elizabeth. But you bring up a great point: those of us on the lib-side should be reading something beyond the American press. Dust off that French, Italian, Deutsch, or whatever: eel faut save wire kiss key see pass, ness-paw? If you just read or lissen-up the American news, I'm sorry to say, you may well be reading either flat-out propaganda or something so filtered through ideological assumptions that it's damned near worthless, at best.
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 11:17 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Edge, of course it's a pattern. Our M$M are cheering squads for their sponsors and our government -- or political parties, as is the case with FOX. All news (or, in the case of American M$M, what passes for news) is propaganda -- that's why it's so important to read between the lines and question everything.
The complicity of the press in the run-up to Iraq invasion was unforgivable. I see the same process at work now, after OBL assassination. Captain says that 'the press [is] getting fat on selling Osama as a "victim"' -- and I wonder if we read/watch the same media, because I see something quite the contrary: jingoism squared and unmitigated bloodlust. I guess we all see what we are sensitized to notice.
But apropos the shameless complicity of the press, I urge you to read the piece Sheria referenced earlier in the thread, The Death Agony of American Democracy. If our democracy is dying -- and it is (if it wasn't really stillborn) -- our media are shamelessly complicit in its demise.
That's why I no longer read or watch M$M if I can help it.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 11:19 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment (but the links are not restored ... sorry):
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Here is the link, Dino.
By omission, I cut off the last letters from the earlier one, so it failed.
But you can do your own search, of course -- Obama April 29 kill order, or anything along those lines, and see what comes up.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 11:24 AM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Elizabeth,
You are most welcome, and thanks for the link. I read through the article: I believe it asserts a claim in its title that is not in the article itself. The phrase "kill order" appears in the title, but that language appears nowhere in the text, so far as I can tell. The language there is something like, "bring Osama bin Laden to justice." It is also said that the "objective" was achieved. I don't see that anything is really settled by the article. But when time permits, I will certainly look up the issue in as much detail as I can find.
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:01 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Washington: US President Barack Obama signed the death warrant for the world's most wanted man Osama bin-Laden on April 29, after months of preparations and meticulous planning against the highest-value target.
Isn't the death warrant synonymous with a kill order, Dino?
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:09 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeletebloggingdino has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Elizabeth,
I'm not sure -- it sounds to me like a journalist's caption-style characterization of an order (like the title), not the language of the order itself. The distinction is vital. To know what happened, you would need access to the official language or to credible sources who had seen it. I rather doubt it's anything so forthright as "this is Osama's death warrant" or "kill him dead no matter what." That would be very incautious and unlawyerly.
Posted by bloggingdino to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:24 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Dino, please note that the report of the death warrant or kill order is based on the interview with a senior administration official who's remained nameless. So it's not just a journalist's interpretation of loosely known facts or conjecture, I'd say, but a direct relation from a person in-the-know, most likely somebody involved in the operation, as evidenced by the detailed timeline of the WH proceedings s/he provided to the press.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:37 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Thanks for the Atlantic link, Dino.
This from the article (interesting, IMO):
The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.
And:
Bin Laden's killing was criticized by several European and United Nations officials on Tuesday, with critics of the operation seizing on the fact that the militant was unarmed and could have theoretically been safely taken into custody. Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV that the U.S. raid was "quite clearly a violation of international law" and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 12:53 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Dino, I like Michael Moore's letter, a lot. It expresses my sentiments almost exactly, especially this part:
In a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.
The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.*
And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.
*Emphasis mine.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 1:01 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Edge, I'm sorry for asking, but are you being sarcastic again?
I'm sorry because I've obviously spent too much time on this issue and on politics in general, and have to admit that I can no longer distinguish who's sayin what and why.
Clearly it's time for me to go back to what I like and understand best: puppies.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 3:15 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Yup, there is proof of my confusion, as if one was needed. I took Captain's comment as Edge's. Sigh. Time to tune out. Puppies it'll be from now on.
Posted by Elizabeth to THE SWASH ZONE at 3:17 PM, May 12, 2011
Restored comment:
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg has left a new comment on your post "An Iceberg in the Sea of Ethics":
Elizabeth:
Yes, we're all repeating ourselves and that's not going to change, so what's the point?
I'm not persuaded by any of this conjecture that the mission was only to kill him. I'm not offended that he was killed and I don't think doing so wasn't what nearly country under attack wouldn't do. Sure you're going to find the usual suspects condemning us and the same unnamed sources and foreign papers and Michael Moore who always condemn us. For what it's worth, and that's not much, the Enquirer is running a headline blaring: "insisting Osama cried and begged for his life." Nobody really knows and everybody is marshaling quotes and links and theorizing to promote their point of view. It's way too soon still and it was surely more too soon when this started hours after the announcement.
So Obama signed a "kill order." What did it actually say? I think he was required to in order to protect the SEALS in case they had to shoot him and that doesn't mean the order actually read "kill him on sight" but I doubt that any of the media has read it for themselves. And I doubt these conclusions based on speculation.
"and could have theoretically been safely taken into custody."
Theoretically, yes, that's what I mean and so much of this rests on theoretical assumptions by people who are inferring and speculating and giving anonymous opinions so one has to be skeptical.
I must remain adamant that this was a military action against an active participant in a war against us and rules of civil justice do not reply. Nor do I think anyone has to establish that crimes against humanity were committed, nor do I think much of what he is guilty of would be brought out in any trial since much is classified for good reason. The same applied 65 years ago. And of course, it really didn't work anyway since holocaust denial is still with us. I'm willing to bet that if any of these men could have been shot by a sniper during the war, they would have been and nary a tear shed.
What was the name of the Japanese general we shot out of the sky as he was traveling in an unarmed plane? It helped us win the war sooner and I'm glad it happened. Where was Mr. Moore to cry foul?
This is the last I'm going to say about this. Sorry to disagree, but I honestly and firmly and passionately do, as much as I like you all.
Posted by Capt. Fogg to THE SWASH ZONE at 2:39 PM, May 12, 2011
My goodness, Octo -- how did you manage all this? Goat bless your eight tentacles and their awesome powers.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Captain, we can agree on something in this instance, I think: we can agree to passionately disagree.
Octo, I'm impressed and delighted! I thought that perhaps all of our fine discussion was forever lost.
ReplyDeleteI like each of you; I just disagree with some of you on this issue. Friends are allowed to disagree.
Octo, you raised an interesting scenario: I am very interested in reading Sheria’s feedback on this hypothetical scenario: Suppose we indicted Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others for torture and war crimes. Would a partisan backlash trigger a constitutional crisis … or civil war? Would every former administration be subject to prosecution, tit for tat, by the next one, thus triggering a cycle of political tribunals with every change in government? Is this what former President Ford had in mind when he pardoned Richard Nixon?
The core problem with indicting Bush et. al. for war crimes is that there is no violation of law, definitely a violation of ethics and morality, but not law in a sitting president involving this nation in war, even under a pretext that is later revealed to be a lie.
In addition, because the U.S. Congress took no actions to prevent the president from exercising his authority in declaring the terrorists to be "enemy combatants" the provisions protecting POWs do not apply to terrorists.
We call it a war on terrorism, but it is an undeclared war. Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). Congress has never declared war with regards to the terrorists. However, it's generally interpreted that as Commander-in-Chief, the president has the authority to commit the armed forces to act to protect American interests when the nation is under attack. 9/11 was the catalyst for the exercising of those emergency powers. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 sets some restrictions on the authority of the president to commit troops without Congressional approval but Bush is only one in a line of presidents who have ignored the War Powers Resolution.
The Bush administration intentionally labeled the terrorists enemy combatants so as not to afford them the protections afforded soldiers in war times. If there is no war, there can't be war crimes. The last declared war was WWII. All of our other wars have not been declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. The one body that could have halted this practice, Congress, did not do so. Congress cannot retroactively declare that Bush's actions were illegal when it authorized his actions while he was in office and raised no objections to them.
There is a mechanism in place to deal with unethical behavior by a president; it's called impeachment; however, Congress did not make any attempt to use it while Bush was in office and impeachment is not applicable to former presidents.
I do think that there would be issues of precedent if a former president were to be tried for war crimes and that it would have a chilling effect on the ability of future presidents to act. The impeachment powers of Congress are supposed to be the check on the office of the president exceeding its authority and there is nothing in the Constitution that envisions prosecution of an ex-president for actions taken while in office. Congress missed its opportunity.
As for Nixon, the impeachment process had begun and impeachment was a near certainty, so he resigned. He was facing a possible indictment for his alleged role in Watergate and Ford pardoned him to prevent that indictment from taking place. Nixon was never facing impeachment or criminal indictment for war crimes; it was for his alleged involvement in Watergate. There is no precedent in the U.S. for charging a sitting president or an ex-president for war crimes.
ReplyDelete