Europe’s Concerned, Worried, and Doubting
May 9, 2011
David Mills
When the world learned that the United States had killed Osama bin Laden, shrewd observers of the liberal political class, particularly its European chapters, knew how they were going to be talking about it. The nearly universal jubilation will be indulged for a day or two, and then the usual brows will furrow and the wise and good begin to express their concerns and worries and doubts. Suitably qualified, of course. Everyone would concede that bin Laden was a very bad man, and had been asking for it, while finding some reason to regret that he had been killed and several reasons to criticize the United States.
Few would definitely condemn the American action, bin Laden being too obviously the enemy even for the most sentimental of liberals to excuse him, as so many still excuse the adorably roly-poly mass murder Mao Tse Tung. (But he was a Communist breaking several million eggs in order to make the new society omelet, and not a religious fundamentalist, so he’s okay. You can’t make an omelet etc.)
They would suggest that the United States acted too quickly, or without enough thought, or without proper consultation, or without thinking of the future, or just in that simple-minded, violent, cowboy way those simple-minded violent American cowboys always act when not restrained by European moral sensitivity. Or, and this image doesn’t contradict that one, in that big, bumbling, clumsy, childish way Americans always act when not restrained by European experience.
And they were going to be ever so disappointed in Barack Obama. Why, he’d been practically European himself, and now they find him almost . . . Texan.
And so it happened. You can find examples everywhere. Most of these examples I’ve taken from Brendan O’Neill’s analysis in Spiked! of the sources of these reactions, which he argues are “fuelled by self-loathing more than justice-loving” and by “a discomfort with decisive action, a fear of what such action might lead to in the future, and a belief that people in the West should douse their emotional zeal and learn to be more meek.” He’s not happy with them, as you might guess.
Many of the concerned, worried, and doubting pointed to the young Americans chanting “U.S.A.!” in the street, which must have seemed the perfect symbol for America’s aggressive disregard for human life and human rights.
”[T]his is very much the American style but I don’t think I’ve ever felt pleased at the death of anybody,” sniffed the Labour party candidate for mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. The United States did not do what he would have done. “We should have captured him and put him on trial. It’s a simple point—are we gangsters or a Western democracy based on the rule of law? This undermines any commitment to democracy and trial by jury and makes Obama look like some sort of mobster.”
The American celebrations, wrote a Guardian columnist (the Guardian is like the New York Times but more so), brought “the same kind of unity that rallies around flags, dismisses dissent and disdains reflection.” Like Livingstone, he thought the United States should have captured bin Laden and put him on trial. “[T]o suggest that ‘justice has been done’, as President Obama did on Sunday night, seems perverse. This was not justice, it was an extra-judicial execution. If you shoot a man twice in the head you do not find him guilty. You find him dead. This was revenge.”
The novelist Kishwar Desai, whose first book recently won England’s major award for first novels, wrote in The Asian Age, “The nuanced reaction in Europe, which takes human rights very seriously, has been a little different to that in the US. . . . He may have been a murderer, a war criminal, or even an evil genius, but if other criminals are given a fair trial why was he not hauled up before an international court of justice? Was President Barack Obama’s rough justice—though put across more eruditely and logically than President George W. Bush ever managed to do—any different to that meted out by Saddam Hussein towards his enemies?”
More vaguely, with his characteristic on-the-one-hand, on-the-other style (he is, to be fair, often trying to understand a matter without simplifying it), the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his discomfort with the operation. “I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances. . . . I do believe that in such circumstances when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal, in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed.”
The problem, let me be clear, is not their concern for law. The problem is that they turn to the law without taking pleasure in the justice they could see had been done.
Last Sunday, I was sitting in a local pub with friends when a special report appeared on one of the televisions, but not the one with the sound up. I pointed to the screen, and one of my friends said, “They got bin Laden!” He had grown up in New York and lost a cousin on 9/11, a cousin whose widow and children he sees when he gets back to the city, and for ten years had said that in hope whenever the television or radio announced breaking news.
We asked the bartender to turn up the sound, and heard the anchorman announce that Osama bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan by American forces. A cheer went up. My friend put his face in his hands for several minutes. He then walked out to call his parents. When he came back, we celebrated.
Which is something the concerned, worried, and doubting, at least the European chapters of that brotherhood, apparently do not understand. “While many nations suffered from al-Qaida’s terrorism and few in the world will mourn Bin Laden’s death,” wrote the Guardian columnist, “the United States is the only place where it sparked spontaneous outpourings of raucous jubilation.”
There is, I would have thought, an obvious reason for that, like two planes flying into tall buildings in New York, not London or Paris, but he thinks there’s something wrong with us. “The patriotic impulse in American society is intense and pervasive. The kind of national fervour reserved elsewhere for occasional events like royal weddings, World Cup victories or major tragedies is a dormant reflex waiting for a trigger.”
He offers this in criticism of America, but he’s said something far more damning about Europe. If he’s right, and I have no reason to doubt him even if he’s probably exaggerated the point a little, their patriotisms must not be intense and pervasive, which is to say, hardly patriotism at all. They only get excited about ephemera like royal weddings and World Cup victories or heart-tugging events like tragedies. Not, apparently, by the vanquishing of their country’s enemies and long-delayed justice being done. Not about anything that actually matters.
It was not always so for Europe, even Europe’s liberals. In the words of the concerned, worried, and doubting speaks the exhausted old man whose plumbing has packed it in, who after decades of sexual conquests now prefers the more sedate pleasures of the flesh, from rare old wines to thick socks that keep his feet warm, who now preaches the virtues of chastity and the vanity of sexual indulgence as if he himself had always been the model of continence, and purses his lips censoriously when he sees the young men chasing the young women.
Heaven knows we have our faults and sins, but we do not need lectures on morality from those who now obey their rules only because they’re too tired to break them and find their greatest pleasures in feeling superior to the young.
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Brendan O’Neill’s The Rise and Fall of the Pity-for-Osama Party.
Comments:
5.9.2011 | 7:22am
Bria says:
When the Twin Towers fell, I was shocked at the gargantuan scale of destruction created by so relatively small a cause. I was horrified at the experiences of the victims, their families, the rescuers, everyone cleaning up and starting over again. But I didn't feel offended or insulted as an American. I remember saying to some that were shocked to the point of catatonia that I'm a Christian first, and an American second. 9/11 didn't feel like a call to arms, an enormous grievance that must be addressed. For me, it was a mind-numbingly huge tragedy, but not "fighting words."
Similarly, when I heard bin Laden had been killed, I was relieved, satisfied that everyone who had been pursuing him had finally succeeded, feeling that relief that a very dangerous man was beyond doing harm to people. But I felt no joy, no exhilaration, no gleeful sense of justice or vengeance. I was (and am) vaguely sad that bin Laden was apparently irredeemable, that he is now in Hell, that he was lost to God. Heaven knows that there will be people in Heaven, repentant, saved by Jesus' sacrifice, who have committed worse atrocities than bin Laden--I wish he could have been brought to salvation, too.
So does Mr. Mills feel that people like me, who aren't beating the drum for pacifism or Euro-ism, but simply feel we have roots deeper in Christ than in America, are wrong for not waving the flag at this time, that we need to be more patriotic?
Similarly, when I heard bin Laden had been killed, I was relieved, satisfied that everyone who had been pursuing him had finally succeeded, feeling that relief that a very dangerous man was beyond doing harm to people. But I felt no joy, no exhilaration, no gleeful sense of justice or vengeance. I was (and am) vaguely sad that bin Laden was apparently irredeemable, that he is now in Hell, that he was lost to God. Heaven knows that there will be people in Heaven, repentant, saved by Jesus' sacrifice, who have committed worse atrocities than bin Laden--I wish he could have been brought to salvation, too.
So does Mr. Mills feel that people like me, who aren't beating the drum for pacifism or Euro-ism, but simply feel we have roots deeper in Christ than in America, are wrong for not waving the flag at this time, that we need to be more patriotic?
5.9.2011 | 8:22am
Ars Artium says:
"What we have, at any rate, are two descriptions of [justice] which continue to stand in tension with one another."
One the one hand, as Archbishop Rowan Williams observes, we have a man who "was manifestly a war criminal". On the other hand, we have no declaration of war, no uniformed armed forces, no rules of combat to be observed or, in the breach, cited.
Osama bin Laden was engaged in "gathering a people to himself" in a "nation" without boundaries with himself as Sultan/Emperor/King. He seduced his "citizens," with promises of glory to be achieved through suicide/murder. He can be properly compared to other great tyrants, past and present.
So our subject is the action of the Navy Seals of the United States Navy. Was theirs the action of a civilized fighting unit, regrettably necessary, or not?
Two thoughts occur to me. One is that the manner of death of Osama bin Laden and his respectful burial has more appeal to a sense of justice than did the, in my opinion, barbaric public execution of Saddam Hussein. Only God is good. We do the best we can in a bitterly riven world.
The other is a thought expressed by a Catholic priest. He stated that a Christian does not rejoice in the death of any other person but uses it as an opportunity to think more carefully about what we owe to God and to one another.
One the one hand, as Archbishop Rowan Williams observes, we have a man who "was manifestly a war criminal". On the other hand, we have no declaration of war, no uniformed armed forces, no rules of combat to be observed or, in the breach, cited.
Osama bin Laden was engaged in "gathering a people to himself" in a "nation" without boundaries with himself as Sultan/Emperor/King. He seduced his "citizens," with promises of glory to be achieved through suicide/murder. He can be properly compared to other great tyrants, past and present.
So our subject is the action of the Navy Seals of the United States Navy. Was theirs the action of a civilized fighting unit, regrettably necessary, or not?
Two thoughts occur to me. One is that the manner of death of Osama bin Laden and his respectful burial has more appeal to a sense of justice than did the, in my opinion, barbaric public execution of Saddam Hussein. Only God is good. We do the best we can in a bitterly riven world.
The other is a thought expressed by a Catholic priest. He stated that a Christian does not rejoice in the death of any other person but uses it as an opportunity to think more carefully about what we owe to God and to one another.
5.9.2011 | 8:29am
A.J. Fox says:
I am all for democracy, however, any nation using it can so easily have that process undermined. I am pleased Bin Laden is unable to burden this world with his terrorist activities. I would have been equally jubilant, had he been captured and held for trial on war crimes - but with a certain degree of scepticism as to whether justice would truly have been done. Without ranting and raving, I will simply mention the Lockerbie bomber. Tried, sentenced then let out on "so called" health grounds. Totally unjust in my opinion - but at least bin Laden cannot be released!!
5.9.2011 | 8:31am
Keith Pavlischek says:
As President Obama said on 60 Minutes, "The one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was served. Anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what they got needs to have their head examined.“ Our answer to the carping of the Europeans ought to be straight-forward and unequivocal. If you got a problem with what the President ordered, and with how the SEALS executed the mission, have the courage of your convictions and indict President Obama and drag the Nobel Peace Prize winner before the ICC or some other international tribunal. Otherwise, shut up and quit whining. Oh, you also might want to get your head examined.
5.9.2011 | 8:39am
Rachel says:
With all due respect, the British, and the Spanish had their own victims too. But with 25% of the population of Europe being Muslim, and no longer being Empire, their response was more restrained.
Their questioning also needs serious consideration. Just because a man "needs killing", and it is easy to do, is not the reason to go out and do it. Blind refusal to question gets in the way of considering the ethics of this action. Unless might is right and trumps ethics in all situations. And if it does, what is the difference between Obama and Mao? It might break the rules, but the job gets done. And from where they stand the ends justifies the means.
The grand narrative trumps the complexity of the true story: that Osama Bin Laden's radicalism was encouraged and financed by the CIA because it was effective in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The problem was that he did not quit when he was no longer needed, but turned against his masters, with the tragic results that we know.
No, I prefer the Vatican's sober commentary, and the questioning of those not so close to the big picture that they can't see it.
Their questioning also needs serious consideration. Just because a man "needs killing", and it is easy to do, is not the reason to go out and do it. Blind refusal to question gets in the way of considering the ethics of this action. Unless might is right and trumps ethics in all situations. And if it does, what is the difference between Obama and Mao? It might break the rules, but the job gets done. And from where they stand the ends justifies the means.
The grand narrative trumps the complexity of the true story: that Osama Bin Laden's radicalism was encouraged and financed by the CIA because it was effective in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The problem was that he did not quit when he was no longer needed, but turned against his masters, with the tragic results that we know.
No, I prefer the Vatican's sober commentary, and the questioning of those not so close to the big picture that they can't see it.
5.9.2011 | 9:49am
Michael Kremer says:
We need to be honest about what happened. Osama was a very evil man. But still, here is what we did: we shot a man in the head in his home, in front of his wife and at least one small child, while his wife was trying to defend him. Yes, he was a monster. But to speak of "taking him out" is to blind ourselves to what our representatives were made to do. This was not "surgical." Now we want to have access to his wives and children. Do we plan to waterboard them? Subject them to "enhanced interrogation"? Lock them in Gitmo for the rest of their lives?
And from what I heard today on the news we entered the home with a 50% chance that our "target" was not even living there. If he had not been found, how would those occupying the home have been treated? (Can we say "home invasion"?)
There is something degrading in this very act, and we have to admit that this is true -- not only for the men who committed the act, but also for those of us who are complicit in it, whether through silence or boisterous celebration. At least Obama has been somber but I don't like the use of euphemisms like "take him out."
And from what I heard today on the news we entered the home with a 50% chance that our "target" was not even living there. If he had not been found, how would those occupying the home have been treated? (Can we say "home invasion"?)
There is something degrading in this very act, and we have to admit that this is true -- not only for the men who committed the act, but also for those of us who are complicit in it, whether through silence or boisterous celebration. At least Obama has been somber but I don't like the use of euphemisms like "take him out."
5.9.2011 | 9:58am
Chippawah says:
Bria, your sentiments reflect mine to a degree. For too many Americans, patriotism is a false god. Think, even during WWII, the heads of state of the West did not plot the murder of Hitler. Had he lived, I believe he would have been put on trial. That is the way civilized societies conduct themselves.
5.9.2011 | 10:03am
Michael Kremer says:
@Rachel: I agree with most of what you have said.
But the reality is that the Muslim population of Europe is far less than 25%.
In 2009 the Muslim population of Europe was about 5.2% overall. I am not sure how much of this reflects Russia which has a Muslim population of 11.7% but not all in what we would call Europe.
For Western Europe here are some figures:
UK 2.7%
Ireland 0.5%
France 6%
Germany 4%
Spain 1%
Italy
But the reality is that the Muslim population of Europe is far less than 25%.
In 2009 the Muslim population of Europe was about 5.2% overall. I am not sure how much of this reflects Russia which has a Muslim population of 11.7% but not all in what we would call Europe.
For Western Europe here are some figures:
UK 2.7%
Ireland 0.5%
France 6%
Germany 4%
Spain 1%
Italy
5.9.2011 | 10:11am
Maximus says:
I think the fundamental problem is that "liberals" have never put their mind around the fact that we are at war, rather than a global Interpol man-hunt for a murderer.
The analogy Mr Wright uses breaks down on two levels...first, the IRA was a group of internal criminals, the Crown wasn't "at war" with the IRA. The Crown was suppressing an armed rebellion by criminals, in other words, it was a civil disturbance...and the Crown therefore could only lawfully act internally. Further, unless I missed it, there was no "declaration of war" by the British Government or Her Majesty on the IRA, so even if the IRA-British conflict looked like a "war," it falls outside even the spirit of the Geneva and Hague Conventions (i.e. "the laws of war").
Secondly, Al Qaeda and the United States are at war...both in fact and in law. OBL is the commander of enemy forces in the field. He is therefore a legitimate military target. Military forces do not "arrest" enemy commanders...they "capture" or "kill" enemy leaders. Historical precident is legion, but for starters, how 'bout the shoot down of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in October 1943 by US Air Force fighters ("Operation Vengeance"). The mission was similar...intelligence fixed the enemy commander and mastermind of the Pearl Harbor attack at a time/place. A raid made up of elite warriors intercepted him and killed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance
We've become soft and stupid in the West after a generation of shredding our history, patrimony, and civilization. We can't go on living in perpetual adolescence much longer...
(BTW...I really dislike mis-using that term...Reagan was a "liberal", many on the left here in the West aren't liberals, they're communists & socialist. There is a difference.)
The analogy Mr Wright uses breaks down on two levels...first, the IRA was a group of internal criminals, the Crown wasn't "at war" with the IRA. The Crown was suppressing an armed rebellion by criminals, in other words, it was a civil disturbance...and the Crown therefore could only lawfully act internally. Further, unless I missed it, there was no "declaration of war" by the British Government or Her Majesty on the IRA, so even if the IRA-British conflict looked like a "war," it falls outside even the spirit of the Geneva and Hague Conventions (i.e. "the laws of war").
Secondly, Al Qaeda and the United States are at war...both in fact and in law. OBL is the commander of enemy forces in the field. He is therefore a legitimate military target. Military forces do not "arrest" enemy commanders...they "capture" or "kill" enemy leaders. Historical precident is legion, but for starters, how 'bout the shoot down of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in October 1943 by US Air Force fighters ("Operation Vengeance"). The mission was similar...intelligence fixed the enemy commander and mastermind of the Pearl Harbor attack at a time/place. A raid made up of elite warriors intercepted him and killed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance
We've become soft and stupid in the West after a generation of shredding our history, patrimony, and civilization. We can't go on living in perpetual adolescence much longer...
(BTW...I really dislike mis-using that term...Reagan was a "liberal", many on the left here in the West aren't liberals, they're communists & socialist. There is a difference.)
5.9.2011 | 10:12am
Mike Melendez says:
Is it wrong to kill a fellow human being?
Is it wrong for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers?
Bin Laden lies somewhere in between. His efforts were far more than just murder. After all, he hoped to bring down the American state, just as he imagined he had brought down the Soviet state, not to mention a number of Arab states. At the same time, they weren't quite war as he did not lead the resources of a nation state. Still 9/11 killed more people -- few, if any, of them soldiers -- than December 7, 1941 in Hawaii.
Until we come to terms with this new category, most arguments made around Bin Laden's efforts will get lost in the conflict of existing categories.
Is it wrong for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers?
Bin Laden lies somewhere in between. His efforts were far more than just murder. After all, he hoped to bring down the American state, just as he imagined he had brought down the Soviet state, not to mention a number of Arab states. At the same time, they weren't quite war as he did not lead the resources of a nation state. Still 9/11 killed more people -- few, if any, of them soldiers -- than December 7, 1941 in Hawaii.
Until we come to terms with this new category, most arguments made around Bin Laden's efforts will get lost in the conflict of existing categories.
5.9.2011 | 10:15am
Michael Kremer says:
Somehow the end of my last comment got cut off, but the figure for Italy is less than 0.1% (I suspect the less than sign was somehow treated as a bit of code) and the source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
5.9.2011 | 10:21am
Andrew Lyttle says:
I don't know how to feel about this. The opinion of Europeans is of no importance, I admit. The weak like to flatter themselves that their weakness is virtue, and the decadent like to flatter themselves that their decadence is sophistication, and the morally confused like to flatter themselves that their confusions are principles. Decrepitude is not wisdom. That said, there did seem to be something decidedly post-Christian (or pre-Christian?) in the sight of all those folks throwing impromptu parties and waving their fists and chanting 'U-S-A!' as though they were celebrating a sporting victory.
Perhaps I'm deceiving myself. In historical cultural terms, it was just yesterday that people took their children and their boxed lunches with them to witness public executions. But general jubilation on that scale over a killing--even the killing of as foul a beast as Osama bin Laden--looked to me very much like an expression of the general coarseness of popular culture these days. And I can't see Christ raising a glass at his local pub in celebration of the deed.
Perhaps I'm deceiving myself. In historical cultural terms, it was just yesterday that people took their children and their boxed lunches with them to witness public executions. But general jubilation on that scale over a killing--even the killing of as foul a beast as Osama bin Laden--looked to me very much like an expression of the general coarseness of popular culture these days. And I can't see Christ raising a glass at his local pub in celebration of the deed.
5.9.2011 | 10:30am
Jennifer says:
I think this misses a rather crucial point. The positive law is going to help us define what "justice" is--and when justice becomes vengance or vigilantism.
Another rather crucial point: President Obama has yet to be forthcoming and open about whether or not this was a targeted extrajudicial killing. The wildly fluctuating narratives of how it happened points to the fact that the WH has a great deal of anxiety and unease about how this "justice" was enacted.
I make no claim to calling this vengance killing or justice, I don't think it is at all clear. The IDF has been using this technique and we put it into our own positive law under Clinton and then expanded that allowance under W. Bush. It is unclear whether or not that has been used here in its purest form, which would be a "kill" order, which then enables "capture and kill" which the WH is doing its darnedest to deny happened.
There is a reason for that--we have publicly criticized the IDF for using it and the international human rights community has been crying out that it enters us into uncomfortable territory concerning human rights when anyone can claim unlawful combatant status.
So I am uncomfortable with anyone calling this "justice" without a) all the details and without b) a full vetting of the arguments to be made for targeted killing as an acceptable post-modern war tactic against non-heads of state acting in an unlawful manner.
I think b) has a lot to be said for it--the IDF has made a powerful argument for its use. But we can't make that argument or even stand in support of that lone voice, if we lack the courage to say that is what we have done and that is what we've been doing, and that is what we will continue to do.
We want to have our cake and eat it too--criticize Israel in the global theatre for doing what we have made legal to do and have done, but evade the claim to using this tactics when it is uncomfortable by obscuring the facts.
So is Europe avoiding the idea that justice has been done? That can't really be said until the new definition of justice is rendered.
Again--I'm not saying that justice hasn't been served. I'm saying it is not clear that it has been served. I'm also not saying that the IDF argument in favor of targeted killings is not a good one. I find it compelling, but we have to have moral courage as a nation to make that argument, with them again.
Instead, what we have is the appearance of wrong-doing with a narrative that shifts with a mood, a process I've referred to as a game of Mad Libs.
We've been blissfully unaware--targeted killings have been at play. Targeted killings have been hotly contested in the international arena with good arguments developing both for and against them, but I don't think anyone is in a position to make that judgement based on the end result of an Osama-less world, which few would argue is a good end which makes the world a safer place.
The means to that end remains morally unclear and frankly so shrouded in the political lie that we risk blinking in the face of wrong if we rush to the decision that this was, in fact "justice" and not vengance or vigilantism. The banality of evil.
Before I get a firestorm: again. I'm saying neither that it was justice nor that it was vigilatnism. I'm saying it is unclear and we can't get clarity until someone from the WH starts telling the truth and not creating sham transparency narratives that are so weakly posed as truth, it seems they understand that we don't even care anymore what the truth is. We will accept whatever it is they have to say that tell us this was an unadulterated good. That is a dangerous place to be.
Another rather crucial point: President Obama has yet to be forthcoming and open about whether or not this was a targeted extrajudicial killing. The wildly fluctuating narratives of how it happened points to the fact that the WH has a great deal of anxiety and unease about how this "justice" was enacted.
I make no claim to calling this vengance killing or justice, I don't think it is at all clear. The IDF has been using this technique and we put it into our own positive law under Clinton and then expanded that allowance under W. Bush. It is unclear whether or not that has been used here in its purest form, which would be a "kill" order, which then enables "capture and kill" which the WH is doing its darnedest to deny happened.
There is a reason for that--we have publicly criticized the IDF for using it and the international human rights community has been crying out that it enters us into uncomfortable territory concerning human rights when anyone can claim unlawful combatant status.
So I am uncomfortable with anyone calling this "justice" without a) all the details and without b) a full vetting of the arguments to be made for targeted killing as an acceptable post-modern war tactic against non-heads of state acting in an unlawful manner.
I think b) has a lot to be said for it--the IDF has made a powerful argument for its use. But we can't make that argument or even stand in support of that lone voice, if we lack the courage to say that is what we have done and that is what we've been doing, and that is what we will continue to do.
We want to have our cake and eat it too--criticize Israel in the global theatre for doing what we have made legal to do and have done, but evade the claim to using this tactics when it is uncomfortable by obscuring the facts.
So is Europe avoiding the idea that justice has been done? That can't really be said until the new definition of justice is rendered.
Again--I'm not saying that justice hasn't been served. I'm saying it is not clear that it has been served. I'm also not saying that the IDF argument in favor of targeted killings is not a good one. I find it compelling, but we have to have moral courage as a nation to make that argument, with them again.
Instead, what we have is the appearance of wrong-doing with a narrative that shifts with a mood, a process I've referred to as a game of Mad Libs.
We've been blissfully unaware--targeted killings have been at play. Targeted killings have been hotly contested in the international arena with good arguments developing both for and against them, but I don't think anyone is in a position to make that judgement based on the end result of an Osama-less world, which few would argue is a good end which makes the world a safer place.
The means to that end remains morally unclear and frankly so shrouded in the political lie that we risk blinking in the face of wrong if we rush to the decision that this was, in fact "justice" and not vengance or vigilantism. The banality of evil.
Before I get a firestorm: again. I'm saying neither that it was justice nor that it was vigilatnism. I'm saying it is unclear and we can't get clarity until someone from the WH starts telling the truth and not creating sham transparency narratives that are so weakly posed as truth, it seems they understand that we don't even care anymore what the truth is. We will accept whatever it is they have to say that tell us this was an unadulterated good. That is a dangerous place to be.
5.9.2011 | 10:31am
CKG says:
I think it is safe to say that the world is a better, even more civilized place without OBL in it.
I understand the celebration of his death, especially among those whose families and friends bore the cost of his wickedness. But there is plenty here to give one pause - not least the tragedy of a man, made, as we all are, in the Image and Likeness of God - a man so obviously gifted, who could only imagine to put those gifts in the service of nihilistic evil.
I found a lot that resonated with me in the Vatican's brief statement on the OBL killing -
"Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.
In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred."
I understand the celebration of his death, especially among those whose families and friends bore the cost of his wickedness. But there is plenty here to give one pause - not least the tragedy of a man, made, as we all are, in the Image and Likeness of God - a man so obviously gifted, who could only imagine to put those gifts in the service of nihilistic evil.
I found a lot that resonated with me in the Vatican's brief statement on the OBL killing -
"Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.
In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred."
5.9.2011 | 10:34am
SteveW says:
Perhaps reviewing the capture of Adolph Eichmann, which has many interesting points of comparison to our action against bin Laden, may prove illuminating:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/eichcap.html
If it was possible for the Israelis to find Eichmann in Argentina, abduct him, transport him to Israel, try, convict, and execute him 15 years after the end of WWII, surely we could have done the same with bin Laden. And surely that would have constituted justice in a fuller sense than what was done in this case.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/eichcap.html
If it was possible for the Israelis to find Eichmann in Argentina, abduct him, transport him to Israel, try, convict, and execute him 15 years after the end of WWII, surely we could have done the same with bin Laden. And surely that would have constituted justice in a fuller sense than what was done in this case.
5.9.2011 | 10:35am
David Taylor says:
This is a disappointing article to find in a magazine for which I usually have a great deal of respect. Sober thanks for a menace removed are in order, but not nationalistic chest thumping.
“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles” - Proverbs 24:17
“Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”
- Ezekiel 33:11
“Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
- Matthew 26:52
“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles” - Proverbs 24:17
“Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”
- Ezekiel 33:11
“Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
- Matthew 26:52
5.9.2011 | 10:35am
Sergio Méndez says:
This whole entry (including comment such as "The weak like to flatter themselves that their weakness is virtue...") is so nitzchean, that it is amazing to think it was written in a pro christian magazine like Firsttings, But then, when it is about to defend their chauvinism, I guess american christians take off their mask very quickly!
5.9.2011 | 10:39am
Bob N. says:
As a veteran of the Vietnam war, I am relieved that Osama is now where he is. He is no longer allowed to terrorize the world. Only God knows if he would have had a fair trial or not if he had been captured and put to trial. It is now God's choice make justice over Osama for his sins.
5.9.2011 | 10:43am
Richard says:
Thanks to the First Things site and to its regular commenters for continuing to honor a tradition of thoughtful and reflective responses to articles posted on the site.
In the passage of several days since the finding and killing of bin Laden, predictable battle lines have been drawn up. For a certain segment of the public, the killing of bin Laden offers the opportunity to preen one's self-described moral superiority. For another segment, the death of bin Laden offers the opportunity to demand their listeners' American cultural bona fides; that is to say, if one did not instantly leap to full throated cheers and maybe head tot he nearest public square to hang a flag from a lamppost, well then, for shame!
Here's a thought. Under the category of moral questions worth distracting oneself about, can we make a distinction between the sort of immediate, reflexive and heartfelt response that Mr. Mills describes for both himself and his friend in the pub, and actions of repeated indulgence in emotions - or their manufacture - after the passage of several days? I think of the iconic photograph of the sailor embracing and kissing the nurse in Times Square as the end of World War II was announced. I know of no one who begrudges that sailor or who would have demanded that he either be marched to a confessional or (these days) be prosecuted for sexual assualt. Most people with actual blood in their veins smile inwardly at the memory of that photo. But I think nearly everyone would object had the patriotic sailor marched through Manhattan forcing a kiss on every woman whom he chanced to see.
Whatever our places on the moral, spiritual or theological spectrums, a good many of us grant exemption from our predisposition to judge to those actions that are neither intrinsically dangerous or evil when they arise from honest emotion. What happens on the next day may be what matters more. The God who is the author of all good pricks our consciences, and we find ourselves challenged to reconcile our impluses with the difficult demands of his supreme will, his supreme goodness, supreme justice, and unlimited love. Like many, I find myself struggling to reconcile my admiration and gratitude for the courage, skill and efficiency of the Navy Seals, and the knowledge that Jesus Christ died for Osama bin Laden - and his followers. In that place of acknowledging that I do not have all the answers, I am thankful for Mr. Mills' thoughts, and thankful as well that there are people like the Archbishop of Canterbury to remind us that the pursuit of justice is not a trivial matter.
In the passage of several days since the finding and killing of bin Laden, predictable battle lines have been drawn up. For a certain segment of the public, the killing of bin Laden offers the opportunity to preen one's self-described moral superiority. For another segment, the death of bin Laden offers the opportunity to demand their listeners' American cultural bona fides; that is to say, if one did not instantly leap to full throated cheers and maybe head tot he nearest public square to hang a flag from a lamppost, well then, for shame!
Here's a thought. Under the category of moral questions worth distracting oneself about, can we make a distinction between the sort of immediate, reflexive and heartfelt response that Mr. Mills describes for both himself and his friend in the pub, and actions of repeated indulgence in emotions - or their manufacture - after the passage of several days? I think of the iconic photograph of the sailor embracing and kissing the nurse in Times Square as the end of World War II was announced. I know of no one who begrudges that sailor or who would have demanded that he either be marched to a confessional or (these days) be prosecuted for sexual assualt. Most people with actual blood in their veins smile inwardly at the memory of that photo. But I think nearly everyone would object had the patriotic sailor marched through Manhattan forcing a kiss on every woman whom he chanced to see.
Whatever our places on the moral, spiritual or theological spectrums, a good many of us grant exemption from our predisposition to judge to those actions that are neither intrinsically dangerous or evil when they arise from honest emotion. What happens on the next day may be what matters more. The God who is the author of all good pricks our consciences, and we find ourselves challenged to reconcile our impluses with the difficult demands of his supreme will, his supreme goodness, supreme justice, and unlimited love. Like many, I find myself struggling to reconcile my admiration and gratitude for the courage, skill and efficiency of the Navy Seals, and the knowledge that Jesus Christ died for Osama bin Laden - and his followers. In that place of acknowledging that I do not have all the answers, I am thankful for Mr. Mills' thoughts, and thankful as well that there are people like the Archbishop of Canterbury to remind us that the pursuit of justice is not a trivial matter.
5.9.2011 | 10:55am
Ethan C. says:
Michael Kremer,
The operation was quite "surgical" compared to the other option, which was to demolish the entire compound with sufficient tonnage of bombs to ensure no survivors. I greatly admire the decision to send in troops to do the mission up close and personally, both to minimize civilian casualties (one non-target casualty -- that's pretty great for this type of operation) and to ensure success. Maybe we're finally getting over the crippling fear of ground operations that we suffered after Somalia.
Bria,
My thoughts upon hearing the news were very similar to yours: grim satisfaction, mixed with a bit of somber regret that this had to be done. But I don't think it's my place to criticize the feelings and expressions of my friends and fellow believers who reacted differently. Emotions are odd things.
I entirely agree with David Mills, though, that the responses of the Europeans cited here stem not from any sort of genuine religious humility or rectitude, but rather from effete resentment and cowardice.
The operation was quite "surgical" compared to the other option, which was to demolish the entire compound with sufficient tonnage of bombs to ensure no survivors. I greatly admire the decision to send in troops to do the mission up close and personally, both to minimize civilian casualties (one non-target casualty -- that's pretty great for this type of operation) and to ensure success. Maybe we're finally getting over the crippling fear of ground operations that we suffered after Somalia.
Bria,
My thoughts upon hearing the news were very similar to yours: grim satisfaction, mixed with a bit of somber regret that this had to be done. But I don't think it's my place to criticize the feelings and expressions of my friends and fellow believers who reacted differently. Emotions are odd things.
I entirely agree with David Mills, though, that the responses of the Europeans cited here stem not from any sort of genuine religious humility or rectitude, but rather from effete resentment and cowardice.
5.9.2011 | 10:57am
Jennifer says:
SteveW: I think our posts likely crossed but Eichmann was exactly what I was evoking when I said "the Banality of Evil" in my post above. That idea comes from Hannah Arendt's reporting in Eichmann in Jerusalem. She was talking about Eichmann, but in typical Arendtian fashion, it also implicated the judicial process of trial in a subtle way. She agreed with the decision, ultimately, but she felt ambivalent about how it was conducted.
It seems to many "counting angels on the head of a pin" or splitting hairs to do so in the face of such evil, but when you are facing wickedness how we proceed is of utmost importance because we are ever in peril of falling into the abyss left in the wake of the evil act. It risks sucking us into a black hole.
So if Arendt could question Israel's conduct in the TRIAL of Eichmann I think we can pause to consider what occurred in Abbottabad and what it means for our culture and national character in the future.
The argument in the WP op-eds yesterday was basically--a trial would have been a headache, so this was the way to go. I have a little still voice inside that warns me against something dark that may be afoot if we start to think of a baseline of our civilization (justice as a process among men) as a "headache."
It seems to many "counting angels on the head of a pin" or splitting hairs to do so in the face of such evil, but when you are facing wickedness how we proceed is of utmost importance because we are ever in peril of falling into the abyss left in the wake of the evil act. It risks sucking us into a black hole.
So if Arendt could question Israel's conduct in the TRIAL of Eichmann I think we can pause to consider what occurred in Abbottabad and what it means for our culture and national character in the future.
The argument in the WP op-eds yesterday was basically--a trial would have been a headache, so this was the way to go. I have a little still voice inside that warns me against something dark that may be afoot if we start to think of a baseline of our civilization (justice as a process among men) as a "headache."
5.9.2011 | 10:59am
David Gray says:
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Psa 58:4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
Psa 58:5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers or of the cunning enchanter.
Psa 58:6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!
Psa 58:7 Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
Psa 58:8 Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
Psa 58:9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
Psa 58:10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
Psa 58:11 Mankind will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth."
Psa 58:4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
Psa 58:5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers or of the cunning enchanter.
Psa 58:6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!
Psa 58:7 Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
Psa 58:8 Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
Psa 58:9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
Psa 58:10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
Psa 58:11 Mankind will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth."
5.9.2011 | 11:01am
Michael Kremer says:
@Jennifer: Thank you for a thoughtful post. For myself I think we should not be engaging in this sort of activity but I see the possibility of arguing the other side.
But -- off-topic -- can I put in a plea for not using "argue that" to mean "argue against"? Given the long-standing, and I think still dominant, usage of "argue that" to mean "argue in support of" I think this (relatively new) usage is very confusing. (I would understand "few would argue that ..." as meaning that few would support the claim that... whereas you meant that few would dispute the claim that ...)
But -- off-topic -- can I put in a plea for not using "argue that" to mean "argue against"? Given the long-standing, and I think still dominant, usage of "argue that" to mean "argue in support of" I think this (relatively new) usage is very confusing. (I would understand "few would argue that ..." as meaning that few would support the claim that... whereas you meant that few would dispute the claim that ...)
5.9.2011 | 11:17am
Michael Kremer says:
@Ethan C.
Demolishing the entire compound was clearly unacceptable given that our intelligence was that there was only something like a 50% chance bin Laden was even there ("a 55/45 situation", based on circumstantial evidence he was there" according to Pres. Obama, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13331762). But this was "the other option" only assuming we had already decided that extra-judicial killing was the way to go. Some above have questioned that decision and I am joining them. See for example SteveW's comment about Eichmann above. If we could capture all the survivors it seems entirely possible we could have captured Bin Laden himself and brought him to trial.
Demolishing the entire compound was clearly unacceptable given that our intelligence was that there was only something like a 50% chance bin Laden was even there ("a 55/45 situation", based on circumstantial evidence he was there" according to Pres. Obama, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13331762). But this was "the other option" only assuming we had already decided that extra-judicial killing was the way to go. Some above have questioned that decision and I am joining them. See for example SteveW's comment about Eichmann above. If we could capture all the survivors it seems entirely possible we could have captured Bin Laden himself and brought him to trial.
5.9.2011 | 11:22am
jhaze says:
@Jennifer: I think you are onto something...a couple new definitions are in order: justice as you stated, and to include war or the declaration of war against anyone or any group without boundaries.
And secondly, would it not be a much more peaceful world if women ruled every country? Can we try this?
Obviously, if 1 country didn't conform, they would eventually attack all the others...
Finally, can we just stop all the lies...everywhere? From top/down, bottom/up right/left, in/out...we all lost sight of truth! One may be a truthful person, but cannot avoid being fed a lot of bull.
Power & greed need to be replaced with truths and peace in this world.
And secondly, would it not be a much more peaceful world if women ruled every country? Can we try this?
Obviously, if 1 country didn't conform, they would eventually attack all the others...
Finally, can we just stop all the lies...everywhere? From top/down, bottom/up right/left, in/out...we all lost sight of truth! One may be a truthful person, but cannot avoid being fed a lot of bull.
Power & greed need to be replaced with truths and peace in this world.
5.9.2011 | 11:30am
Marie says:
Anyone who says that we weren't justified in killing him is missing several crucial points: first, capturing a prominent (some might say the most important) terrorist leader and bringing him back to American soil would have put our country in some pretty serious peril. Would there really not have been rescue attempts and retaliation? Second, no way was he going to let himself be captured. Why would he do that? Even if the SEALs had been sent to take him, there is probably a 99% chance that Osama would have been shot in self-defense anyway. Third, he has already pled guilty, on video, multiple times to heinous acts of violence - and threatened more. Both justice and the defense of innocents were served by killing him. I didn't vote for him, but I'll go with Obama on this one.
We should not look down our sanctimonious noses at those who celebrated. Every people in history has rejoiced at the fall of a tyrant - and not because they're out for blood, but because of what a tyrant's fall symbolizes. We rejoice because he can no longer commit acts of terror, and because there is less evil in the world. We hope that he made peace with his Maker in those last minutes, but we know that his Maker is better equipped to deal with him.
We should not look down our sanctimonious noses at those who celebrated. Every people in history has rejoiced at the fall of a tyrant - and not because they're out for blood, but because of what a tyrant's fall symbolizes. We rejoice because he can no longer commit acts of terror, and because there is less evil in the world. We hope that he made peace with his Maker in those last minutes, but we know that his Maker is better equipped to deal with him.
5.9.2011 | 11:31am
Jennifer Pierce says:
Michael Kremer: You are right it is clumsy syntax. I've always needed a strong editorial hand and appreciate it. "The idea that Osama bin Laden is a good end is an idea few people would argue against." Is much clearer. Agreed. Or I suppose if we want to be UBER-correct: "against which few would argue" but as I understand current style manuals, the ban on ending in prepositions has softened."
I have trouble seeing my own garbled syntax at times. Thanks for pointing that out!
@Richard: I wrote a blog post on this topic that deals with that WWII image in specific. In fact, I did a digital rendering of it that I think portrays why that old image doesn't work. This is future shock. We don't have categories for dealing with this because though this isn't the first time we've used this tactic it is the first high profile example of something that has been slowly evolving.
Why doesn't it work? My blog post goes into greater detail but number one---there aren't soldiers coming home. We still have boots and blood on the ground. This is the point that makes my emotions go a little out of check. IF we are going to use this type of tactic to take out what are essentially thugs, then why in the holy heck to we have 10 years of boots and blood on the ground and why the heck are we staying? The most salient argument for these tactics IS that they are surgical and have a much better civilian to unlawful combatant death ratio, as well as a compelling frugality in spending American blood. That is in fact, the only argument for it worth airing.
If we can't be thrifty with our tax monies I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if we can't do it with our men and women soldiers. But I can't help but feel riled that we don't get more upset at THAT lack of thrift than with our measly dollars.
I find it difficult to have the joy that picture evokes if there is a Nurse looking at a Twitter feed about Osama bin Laden's death without the sailor greeting her.
I also find it difficult to feel anything at all, when I can't get over the fact that the WH is so clearly lying and doesn't even feel a need to apologize for it, outside of "the fog of war."
Indeed. When it is in a fishbowl, the Fog of War seems to come to us all.
I have trouble seeing my own garbled syntax at times. Thanks for pointing that out!
@Richard: I wrote a blog post on this topic that deals with that WWII image in specific. In fact, I did a digital rendering of it that I think portrays why that old image doesn't work. This is future shock. We don't have categories for dealing with this because though this isn't the first time we've used this tactic it is the first high profile example of something that has been slowly evolving.
Why doesn't it work? My blog post goes into greater detail but number one---there aren't soldiers coming home. We still have boots and blood on the ground. This is the point that makes my emotions go a little out of check. IF we are going to use this type of tactic to take out what are essentially thugs, then why in the holy heck to we have 10 years of boots and blood on the ground and why the heck are we staying? The most salient argument for these tactics IS that they are surgical and have a much better civilian to unlawful combatant death ratio, as well as a compelling frugality in spending American blood. That is in fact, the only argument for it worth airing.
If we can't be thrifty with our tax monies I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if we can't do it with our men and women soldiers. But I can't help but feel riled that we don't get more upset at THAT lack of thrift than with our measly dollars.
I find it difficult to have the joy that picture evokes if there is a Nurse looking at a Twitter feed about Osama bin Laden's death without the sailor greeting her.
I also find it difficult to feel anything at all, when I can't get over the fact that the WH is so clearly lying and doesn't even feel a need to apologize for it, outside of "the fog of war."
Indeed. When it is in a fishbowl, the Fog of War seems to come to us all.
5.9.2011 | 11:32am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been."
Revelation 6:9-11 (ESV)
"The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say,
'Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was,
for you brought these judgments.
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink.
It is what they deserve!'
And I heard the altar saying,
'Yes, Lord God the Almighty,
true and just are your judgments!'"
Revelation 16:4-7 (ESV)
"After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,
'Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.'
Once more they cried out,
'Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.'
And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, 'Amen. Hallelujah!' And from the throne came a voice saying,
'Praise our God,
all you his servants,
you who fear him,
small and great.'"
Revelation 19:1-5 (ESV)
Revelation 6:9-11 (ESV)
"The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say,
'Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was,
for you brought these judgments.
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink.
It is what they deserve!'
And I heard the altar saying,
'Yes, Lord God the Almighty,
true and just are your judgments!'"
Revelation 16:4-7 (ESV)
"After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,
'Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.'
Once more they cried out,
'Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.'
And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, 'Amen. Hallelujah!' And from the throne came a voice saying,
'Praise our God,
all you his servants,
you who fear him,
small and great.'"
Revelation 19:1-5 (ESV)
5.9.2011 | 11:48am
XC says:
OK guys, with that closing paragraph, the NationalReviewization of First Things is complete. Let us look elsewhere for a learned journal of opinion and essays concerning the life of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the modern world...
5.9.2011 | 12:08pm
Judy K. Warner says:
Two comments on David's excellent piece:
One, how many of those Europeans who are wringing their hands over a killing without a trial laughed at the jokes about killing George W. Bush, admired a play written on that subject, or even opined that he should be dead? We shouldn't forget the out-of-control rhetoric coming from the European and American left during the Bush years.
And two, I think that some of the jubilation Americans showed was relief that our government was able to take decisive action on America's behalf. After two-plus years of watching President Obama apologize to the world for our country, pal around with some of the world's worst tyrants, and slap our best allies around, it came as a pleasant shock that he would order bin Laden to be killed rather than invite him to the White House.
One, how many of those Europeans who are wringing their hands over a killing without a trial laughed at the jokes about killing George W. Bush, admired a play written on that subject, or even opined that he should be dead? We shouldn't forget the out-of-control rhetoric coming from the European and American left during the Bush years.
And two, I think that some of the jubilation Americans showed was relief that our government was able to take decisive action on America's behalf. After two-plus years of watching President Obama apologize to the world for our country, pal around with some of the world's worst tyrants, and slap our best allies around, it came as a pleasant shock that he would order bin Laden to be killed rather than invite him to the White House.
5.9.2011 | 12:30pm
Mike Melendez says:
I appreciate the raising of Eichmann's capture and trial as a reference point. Still, I note that it doesn't quite match. Eichmann's war was 15 years past at the time. Bin Laden's war that is not a war is very much present.
5.9.2011 | 12:34pm
David Gray says:
>OK guys, with that closing paragraph, the NationalReviewization of First Things is complete. Let us look elsewhere for a learned journal of opinion and essays concerning the life of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the modern world...
The Christian tradition would appear to be something which causes you discomfort.
The Christian tradition would appear to be something which causes you discomfort.
5.9.2011 | 12:35pm
Matt says:
Bin Laden was actively planning further attacks on US soil at the time of the raid. Killing him was a pragmatic and appropriate decision.
While I personally applaud Obama's decision as courageous and proper, I'm glad that there are people -- both on the left and the right -- questioning his choice. It shows we're not all sheep, that we live in a democracy in which people can differ openly, and that there are complex moral questions that we are willing to consider and discuss. We grow and evolve through exposure to other ideas. While I don't agree with the hand wringing in this case, I think there are some valid and noble beliefs behind it. Violence is always morally tricky, and it would be sad if it were a universally accepted solution.
While I personally applaud Obama's decision as courageous and proper, I'm glad that there are people -- both on the left and the right -- questioning his choice. It shows we're not all sheep, that we live in a democracy in which people can differ openly, and that there are complex moral questions that we are willing to consider and discuss. We grow and evolve through exposure to other ideas. While I don't agree with the hand wringing in this case, I think there are some valid and noble beliefs behind it. Violence is always morally tricky, and it would be sad if it were a universally accepted solution.
5.9.2011 | 12:52pm
David Gray says:
>The problem, let me be clear, is not their concern for law. The problem is that they turn to the law without taking pleasure in the justice they could see had been done.
I would pick one nit with Mr. Mills' fine column. The problem is they have no idea of the actual content of the law, they merely take their emotive needs and refer to them as the law.
I would pick one nit with Mr. Mills' fine column. The problem is they have no idea of the actual content of the law, they merely take their emotive needs and refer to them as the law.
5.9.2011 | 1:08pm
CKG says:
I also wonder about the US government's insistence that OBL was buried at sea, 'in accordance with Muslim tradition'. Specifically, I wonder what is meant by 'in accordance with the Muslim tradition'. Did they have an imam present, intoning Muslim prayers over the body as it was committed to its grave? The government's own statements in this regard seem to focus on the fact that the body was 'buried' within 24 hours of death. For which the government would have its own reasons, entirely unrelated to Islamic practice.
To be clear - I think that, on the whole, it is a good thing to dispose of OBL's corpse quickly, and without establishing any definite 'holy place' where his body lies, and I completely understand the government's motives for doing so. But why it was necessary to dress it up in 'religiously sensitive' verbiage, I don't quite understand. Do they really think that Muslims would be assuaged by their assurances of 'sensitivity'?
Speaking on my own behalf as a Catholic Christian, I would be a bit insulted if the US government (and all the moreso, say, the government of an Islamic state) took pains to assure me that a fellow-Catholic's remains were treated 'in accordance with the Catholic tradition'. The obvious condescension aside, I wouldn't trust them to even know what the Catholic tradition IS, much less to honor the last remains of a Catholic according to it. And, mutatis mutandis, I think I would trust them even less with regard to 'the Muslim tradition'. . .
To be clear - I think that, on the whole, it is a good thing to dispose of OBL's corpse quickly, and without establishing any definite 'holy place' where his body lies, and I completely understand the government's motives for doing so. But why it was necessary to dress it up in 'religiously sensitive' verbiage, I don't quite understand. Do they really think that Muslims would be assuaged by their assurances of 'sensitivity'?
Speaking on my own behalf as a Catholic Christian, I would be a bit insulted if the US government (and all the moreso, say, the government of an Islamic state) took pains to assure me that a fellow-Catholic's remains were treated 'in accordance with the Catholic tradition'. The obvious condescension aside, I wouldn't trust them to even know what the Catholic tradition IS, much less to honor the last remains of a Catholic according to it. And, mutatis mutandis, I think I would trust them even less with regard to 'the Muslim tradition'. . .
5.9.2011 | 1:22pm
Steve Martin says:
Europeans learned the wrong lesson from WWII.
Instead of learning to fight against evil...they learned to NOT fight at all.
And evil will keep right on marching along.
Instead of learning to fight against evil...they learned to NOT fight at all.
And evil will keep right on marching along.
5.9.2011 | 1:23pm
Fred says:
I expect hand-wringing and crocodile tears from the Euroweenies, but from Americans? To paraphrase R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, "Act like ya GOT a pair!" People, we took out the trash. The only thing to regret is that Bin Laden's death wasn't slower and more painful. As some commenters have already pointed out, OBL will never kill anyone else and this is a powerful example pour les autres for anyone planning to become the next Bin Laden. What's not to celebrate?
5.9.2011 | 1:25pm
Todd says:
Two thoughts occur: first, that America's raucous jubilation might well be understood in light of something we've half-forgotten: the huge spike in illnesses like arthritis, depression, and other stress-produced diseases that followed 9/11. For America, 9/11 wasn't simply a horrible crime. It was an actual trauma. The death of OBL, accordingly, was a catharsis.
Second, that it isn't that American patriotism is so unique, but that European patriotism is so unnaturally thin, having been strangled between 1914 and 1918.
Second, that it isn't that American patriotism is so unique, but that European patriotism is so unnaturally thin, having been strangled between 1914 and 1918.
5.9.2011 | 1:36pm
Bop MacGabhann says:
Dear Andrew Lyttle:
Hear, hear, for a change. I’m no fan of the Grauniad since I grew up,
and I am well aware of the pervasive, knee-jerk anti-Americanism that
operates across the pond, but you are right, there is an unseemly
“Gotcha” element in (some) of the American response that brings to
mind British football louts and tabloid headline writers.
I believe that there is a difference between retribution and
vengeance: the former serves God’s natural justice, the latter serves
man’s libido dominandi. And I believe that Mr Mills, who seems to be
structurally identical to any Guardian reader in his self-sustaining
moralistic myopia, would do well to ponder the distinction. When Jesus
told us to love our enemies he was not being trite.
Hear, hear, for a change. I’m no fan of the Grauniad since I grew up,
and I am well aware of the pervasive, knee-jerk anti-Americanism that
operates across the pond, but you are right, there is an unseemly
“Gotcha” element in (some) of the American response that brings to
mind British football louts and tabloid headline writers.
I believe that there is a difference between retribution and
vengeance: the former serves God’s natural justice, the latter serves
man’s libido dominandi. And I believe that Mr Mills, who seems to be
structurally identical to any Guardian reader in his self-sustaining
moralistic myopia, would do well to ponder the distinction. When Jesus
told us to love our enemies he was not being trite.
5.9.2011 | 1:56pm
Brian Douglas says:
I think to rid the world of someone so obviously evil is no bad thing and all credit to the Americans that got the job done.
I would like to know but I guess we will never find out, how many people in Pakistan knew he was there.
The burial at sea appears a little bit strange to me. Maybe OBL followers might have tried to get the body back and more lives would have been needlessly lost.
As was mentioned in a previous comment what happens to the family members that survived? where are they now? I trust they will not be imprisoned without good reason
I would like to know but I guess we will never find out, how many people in Pakistan knew he was there.
The burial at sea appears a little bit strange to me. Maybe OBL followers might have tried to get the body back and more lives would have been needlessly lost.
As was mentioned in a previous comment what happens to the family members that survived? where are they now? I trust they will not be imprisoned without good reason
5.9.2011 | 2:23pm
Alex C says:
“In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.”
---Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, S.J. in response to Bin Laden's killing
---Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, S.J. in response to Bin Laden's killing
5.9.2011 | 2:24pm
Charlie Collier says:
I've searched Mills' post for "God," "Jesus," "love," "charity," "forgiveness," "reconciliation," "Bible," "theology," "peace," "faith," "salvation," "redemption," "justification," and "Christ"—none of which appears in this "On the Square" post from one of First Things' "top writers." So much for "first things" at First Things.
Reading a post like this is like turning on ESPN and getting Oprah. Can someone at First Things let readers know when this channel is actually going to be on topic? Good theology is hard to come by, especially good political theology. Conservative whining about wimply European liberals is not.
Reading a post like this is like turning on ESPN and getting Oprah. Can someone at First Things let readers know when this channel is actually going to be on topic? Good theology is hard to come by, especially good political theology. Conservative whining about wimply European liberals is not.
5.9.2011 | 2:30pm
Kevin says:
Like Bria, I am a Christian and an American. Like her, I believe that I must be a Christian first. However, I think those two defining points of my being are often reconcilable. This is one. As Christians we are commanded to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; a command to live fully within the civil society where we find ourselves. That's not easy to do, though I think Bria would agree that it is easier to do so as an American than as an ancient Roman. I am required to determine whether war is just or not and I should support it if so. I have no hesitation regarding our war against Al Queda. Bin Laden was not an elected, appointed or birthright ruler of an adverse civil society. He was (at most) a leader of warfare. In that sense he certainly enjoyed no more exalted a position than an opposing army general. Field Marshall Rommell was killed in an allied air attack on his car convoy. He was a legitimate target. Even were it posssible to have captured, rather than killed him, the decision could morally be made either way, as one of military convenience under the wartime circumstances. I don't see a reason why Bin Laden enjoyed some superior status, requiring us to capture him merely because it was possible to do so. And no, he shouldn't be put on trial. This is war, not law enforcement. Our glee at his demise is certainly no less justified than I am sure was demonstrated when American citizens learned of the demise of "the Desert Fox". It is simply joy and relief that an enemy has been dispatched. If I didn't allow myself that joy and relief in this case, it would be because I refused to reconcile my Christianity with my American citizenship.
5.9.2011 | 2:30pm
Brian English says:
"The grand narrative trumps the complexity of the true story: that Osama Bin Laden's radicalism was encouraged and financed by the CIA because it was effective in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan."
(1) Bin Laden didn't need financing from the CIA.
(2) The majority of the Afghan fighters against the Soviets ended up in the Northern Alliance, fighting against bin Laden's allies in the Taliban.
(3) The Taliban was created by Pakistan AFTER the Soviets had been driven from Afghanistan.
(1) Bin Laden didn't need financing from the CIA.
(2) The majority of the Afghan fighters against the Soviets ended up in the Northern Alliance, fighting against bin Laden's allies in the Taliban.
(3) The Taliban was created by Pakistan AFTER the Soviets had been driven from Afghanistan.
5.9.2011 | 2:35pm
Brian English says:
"I found a lot that resonated with me in the Vatican's brief statement on the OBL killing -"
The Vatican should look at its own Feast Day Calendar before issuing this kind of statement. The Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary on October 7th does not appear consistent with this approach.
The Vatican should look at its own Feast Day Calendar before issuing this kind of statement. The Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary on October 7th does not appear consistent with this approach.
5.9.2011 | 3:00pm
Brian English says:
"Think, even during WWII, the heads of state of the West did not plot the murder of Hitler. Had he lived, I believe he would have been put on trial. That is the way civilized societies conduct themselves."
The allies killed Yamamoto, they certainly would have killed Hitler if given the opportunity.
Both the Vatican and a Protestant giant like Dietrich Bonhoeffer assisted plots to assassinate Hitler.
The allies killed Yamamoto, they certainly would have killed Hitler if given the opportunity.
Both the Vatican and a Protestant giant like Dietrich Bonhoeffer assisted plots to assassinate Hitler.
5.9.2011 | 3:14pm
JP says:
"So does Mr. Mills feel that people like me, who aren't beating the drum for pacifism or Euro-ism, but simply feel we have roots deeper in Christ than in America, are wrong for not waving the flag at this time, that we need to be more patriotic? "
Bria,
The author wasn't addressing people like you. He was defending those that did cheer, if for no other reason than a very evil man was given his just deserts. However, in a backhand way, Mr Mills was critiquing those who have a moral sensibility that is a bit too refined and too abstract.
Bria,
The author wasn't addressing people like you. He was defending those that did cheer, if for no other reason than a very evil man was given his just deserts. However, in a backhand way, Mr Mills was critiquing those who have a moral sensibility that is a bit too refined and too abstract.
5.9.2011 | 3:15pm
Sergio Méndez says:
Kevin and Brian:
But why will we accept that the US is at "war"? I mean, Al Qeada is not a State or nation, nor an army (not even an irregular one). It is a criminal band. You my like to twiste the term "war" all you like, but it doesn´t make it so. I do not know how Bin Laden died, if he resisted capture and was shot in those circunstances, then his death is perfectly legitimate (as the one of any other criminal). But if Bin Laden was shot in cold blod when he could have been captured, that is murder. You seem to pretend that the second alternative (whatever it was or not the case) is legitimate, and its not.
But why will we accept that the US is at "war"? I mean, Al Qeada is not a State or nation, nor an army (not even an irregular one). It is a criminal band. You my like to twiste the term "war" all you like, but it doesn´t make it so. I do not know how Bin Laden died, if he resisted capture and was shot in those circunstances, then his death is perfectly legitimate (as the one of any other criminal). But if Bin Laden was shot in cold blod when he could have been captured, that is murder. You seem to pretend that the second alternative (whatever it was or not the case) is legitimate, and its not.
5.9.2011 | 3:15pm
Matt says:
We have "just war" guidelines for handling war. I think we need "just counter-terrorism" guidelines for handling terrorism. Small but carefully planned and targeted operations like the one that killed Bin Laden are very effective anti-terrorism measures. After 9/11, we tried other vague distractions like invading Iraq, which has resulted in thousands of American deaths and untold collateral damage to the other side. All military strategies involve moral ambiguities and complexity. We need pragmatic defensive strategies that are as "moral as possible." No violent response will ever be morally perfect in a fallen world, but we may still defend ourselves. In contrast to the invasion of Iraq, Obama's plan was far more defensive than offensive, as borne out by the fact that he it was revealed OBL was actively planning further attacks on the US.
Incidentally, according to an NBC poll, 80% of those polled support the killing of OBL, 11% opposes it, and 9% was undecided.
Incidentally, according to an NBC poll, 80% of those polled support the killing of OBL, 11% opposes it, and 9% was undecided.
5.9.2011 | 3:19pm
Jonas says:
I think it morally wrong to be pleased in the death of any individual. To see it as necessary or even a “good” is one thing; but to rejoice in it is quite another. The debate of whether or not we should have killed Osama is one conversation. However, I feel that the conversation should also be concerned with whether or not we should, as Christians, celebrate an individual’s death, whoever he is or how evil. As a citizen in no place to decide whether or not Osama was killed or captured alive, I don’t have any control over whether or not we killed him; however, I do have control over my own reactions to the matter: and I have a duty to be sure that my reactions, emotional and otherwise, are in line with a life lived in the shadow of Christ.
5.9.2011 | 3:21pm
craig says:
The comparison with the case of Eichmann is not apt; Eichmann was a high official of the Third Reich, a Westphalian nation-state, and he was responsible for specific official actions of that state taken in defiance of international conventions to which it was a party. The Third Reich had already been defeated on the battlefield long before Eichmann was captured and tried. The only remaining reason to prosecute Eichmann was punitive.
Bin Laden, on the other hand, was the public head of a stateless terrorist organization that has no capital, flys no flag, wears no uniform, and which continues to inflict death and destruction without warning upon nations throughout the world. Al-Qaida has not agreed to abide by any treaties, conventions, or laws of war; its only rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Through its statements released to sympathetic news agencies, Al-Qaida has declared perpetual war upon the West and also upon Islamic regimes it deems to have compromised with the West. In such a situation, ordinary criminal prosecution is insufficient to halt the threat or restore public order; men such as Bin Laden are hostis humanae generis and should be treated as such.
Christians can pray for the soul of Bin Laden as a fellow human being, but they don't need to also lament about how he met his end. He chose his path willingly.
Bin Laden, on the other hand, was the public head of a stateless terrorist organization that has no capital, flys no flag, wears no uniform, and which continues to inflict death and destruction without warning upon nations throughout the world. Al-Qaida has not agreed to abide by any treaties, conventions, or laws of war; its only rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Through its statements released to sympathetic news agencies, Al-Qaida has declared perpetual war upon the West and also upon Islamic regimes it deems to have compromised with the West. In such a situation, ordinary criminal prosecution is insufficient to halt the threat or restore public order; men such as Bin Laden are hostis humanae generis and should be treated as such.
Christians can pray for the soul of Bin Laden as a fellow human being, but they don't need to also lament about how he met his end. He chose his path willingly.
5.9.2011 | 3:28pm
David Gray says:
Fascinating to see all these folk (apparently including Vatican apparatchiks) who think they are on a higher moral plane than God when they think nobody should ever rejoice in the death of the wicked.
5.9.2011 | 3:40pm
Gregory K Laughlin says:
@Jonas (and others who agree with him),
What then do you make of the descriptions I quoted from Revelation above in which the angels and the saints in heaven rejoice over God's dispensing of judgment to the wicked and the cries of the martyrs for justice for their slaying? Unless we are prepared to throw out the many passages in Scripture in which the righteous rejoice at the destruction of the wicked, we must somehow reconcile these with the injunction to love our enemies. It certainly is a subject worth considering, but perhaps both sides in the argument are too quick to dismiss the passages that do not support their views.
What then do you make of the descriptions I quoted from Revelation above in which the angels and the saints in heaven rejoice over God's dispensing of judgment to the wicked and the cries of the martyrs for justice for their slaying? Unless we are prepared to throw out the many passages in Scripture in which the righteous rejoice at the destruction of the wicked, we must somehow reconcile these with the injunction to love our enemies. It certainly is a subject worth considering, but perhaps both sides in the argument are too quick to dismiss the passages that do not support their views.
5.9.2011 | 3:53pm
Stammon says:
Most Americans and Europeans don't realize how different their patriotism is. Our Swedish daughter was taken aback by so many American flags on display. Football games, city hall, homeowner's flagpoles, almost everywhere. Over time we figured each other out. Her country's flag is flown by the government, or the royals, and seen as such. It is the Swedish flag, her flag, but not really anything other than that. The American's flag, the Stars and Strips, is a representative of the American people's ideal, a country of freedom and law and even God. It is not so much a place or even a people but a movement, a successful revolution. It's genetics may be European, it's ancestry British and Christian, but to an American their country has risen above it's origins to become a beacon of freedom and hope for mankind.
Europe doesn't have to agree with American's self concepts, but they ought to try to be less smug about their own.
Europe doesn't have to agree with American's self concepts, but they ought to try to be less smug about their own.
5.9.2011 | 4:05pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Stammon: I think our flag, the stars and stripes, means more to us as it is one of the symbols that unites us. We are the most diverse successful nation in the world. We cannot unite around shared origins with the flag just a designator. We unite around ideas as symbolized by, e.g., the stars and stripes.
5.9.2011 | 4:09pm
@ Keith Pavlischek, quoting President Obama - "The one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out."
Not so. According to leaked reports, President Obama dithered for weeks between the apparently traitorous counsel to do nothing (so we don't inflame the Muslim world) spoken by Iranian-born political advisor Valerie Jarrett, and the commonsense advice from Gen Petraeus, Sec. Gates, Sec. Clinton, and CIA Director Panetta to eliminate him already.
President Obama brought himself to a decision only after the patriots in the President's inner circle threatened to expose Valerie Jarrett's despicable protection of bin Laden, and she hid herself for a day or so as a result. He slept on it a night before making the decision, generally a good thing to do, but counter to his own description of events. Then the President and his sycophants in the MSM spun his "decision" as a "gutsy call" that showed him in decisive command. Misleading and pathetic times 10.
Not so. According to leaked reports, President Obama dithered for weeks between the apparently traitorous counsel to do nothing (so we don't inflame the Muslim world) spoken by Iranian-born political advisor Valerie Jarrett, and the commonsense advice from Gen Petraeus, Sec. Gates, Sec. Clinton, and CIA Director Panetta to eliminate him already.
President Obama brought himself to a decision only after the patriots in the President's inner circle threatened to expose Valerie Jarrett's despicable protection of bin Laden, and she hid herself for a day or so as a result. He slept on it a night before making the decision, generally a good thing to do, but counter to his own description of events. Then the President and his sycophants in the MSM spun his "decision" as a "gutsy call" that showed him in decisive command. Misleading and pathetic times 10.
5.9.2011 | 4:26pm
mike says:
The soldiers were under orders to take Osama alive only if it could be verified that he was not wearing an exploding shirt. Since that was not possible, they killed him. That's no more an execution than a sniper taking out an armed hostage-taker. That's justice and justice is a virtue. Osama's death is entirely of his own making. Thank God for the American soldiers who risked their lives to make the world a little more just. Good article.
5.9.2011 | 4:36pm
Jennifer says:
@jhaze, thanks for recognizing that these are novel events and that historic comparisons fall short. That is the crucial point---the IDF has been experimenting with this tactic and make a good argument within Mosaic law for targeted killings (shoot to kill, surgical hunt, find, and kill) when there is an active unlawful combatant, who may or may not prepared to run a suicide mission when they are in fact captured and even surrendered.
But it raises some sobering spectres and this is where the ghost of Eichmann begins its most terrifying haunt. If we allow the tactics to reverse what has been the standard (of which Eichmann is the most powerful representative) of justice in crimes against humanity, we must think carefully about where those decisions lead. GK Chesterton talked once about fences taken down without consideration for what they were once for. Like it or not, there has been a fence around this type of military tactic in order to protect us from the tendency of human beings to become vigilantes, revenge seekers, blood for blood. We fool ourselves if we don't keep that tendency in the forefront of our minds and remember that it is our job as citizens to ensure that we keep those tendencies in check with the restraint and heuristic of the positive law.
There has also been a tradition of NOT going toward extra-judicial killings simply because--abstract or "refined" or no--we have as a Western society had moral consensus and faith on the grand purpose of judicial proceedings: the airing of crimes against humanity as a teaching moment and as a ceremonial process for forming human peoples morally. Without that process we all feel entitled to come to a quick moral conclusion on our own because those charged with that process in the social order are dishonest and/or silent.
It is a good point: Eichmann falls short as all historic examples do in novel events. He was rendered somewhat harmless by the fall of his regime and the time that passed between his active participation and his falling into obscurity. Still the example stands as to what the judicial standards has been FOR in crimes against humanity and if it is to be circumvented we have to have very strong reasons WHY this is so. It may seem hairsplitting to have to air those but that might be because we have been so blissfully unaware of what has been going on with targeted killings on the international stage and the conversations that have evolved on whether or not they can be considered just. As it is, it has been a very complicated issue with arguments falling on both sides pro and con, and I think if one is cognizant of them, it is a bit humbling. It isn't at all clear that allowing this could be removing a barrier that allowed us to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys.
The WH's ever-shifting narrative about the status of this "capture or kill" mission leads me to believe that this was a straight up kill mission. I could be persuaded on several counts on why that may have been a just action, on why there is a bin Laden exception, as it were. But if the facts are clouded and continually spun, if we blindly turn away that the political lie that is being cast before us so carelessly, we cannot vet those arguments and give them the moral hearing they deserve. We are left to pretend that all was legitimate and nothing in our military history since WWI has changed. We are left to say that only the end matters and the means should be ignored.
Should the WH come forward and admit what they have done, justice could be served. It would be bold, and morally courageous. Duck and cover on this is just absurd and I can't believe that we are asked to buy the radical shifts in narrative as just "the Fog of War."
Coming forward and giving the bald facts--yes, we went on a kill mission, we've done it before and we'll do it again---is tricky to do when we've publicly criticized Israel on the global stage for these same tactics. It would be a moment of superior moral courage and we could begin to redefine justice in terms that fit the current technological age we've entered where a guy with a limp, a soft handshake, a set of bum kidneys and a computer can wreak bloody havoc and create hell on Earth.
The truth will set you free, it has been said ad nauseum. I'll also add it is impossible to have any justice at all when there is no truth. The truth has yet to be aired. I'm troubled when people act as if that is completely irrelevant. I'm troubled when people think they can come to any kind of moral decision at all when we don't even have the facts.
Without the facts, and without a judicial process on what happened, we have no way to frame our "rejoicing" as rejoicing in justice or rejoicing in vengeance. We have no idea what we are rejoicing about other than an end that all would agree is good. But our moral tradition has always taught that the means are anything but irrelevant. Do we forget? Or is that too refined and abstract?
But it raises some sobering spectres and this is where the ghost of Eichmann begins its most terrifying haunt. If we allow the tactics to reverse what has been the standard (of which Eichmann is the most powerful representative) of justice in crimes against humanity, we must think carefully about where those decisions lead. GK Chesterton talked once about fences taken down without consideration for what they were once for. Like it or not, there has been a fence around this type of military tactic in order to protect us from the tendency of human beings to become vigilantes, revenge seekers, blood for blood. We fool ourselves if we don't keep that tendency in the forefront of our minds and remember that it is our job as citizens to ensure that we keep those tendencies in check with the restraint and heuristic of the positive law.
There has also been a tradition of NOT going toward extra-judicial killings simply because--abstract or "refined" or no--we have as a Western society had moral consensus and faith on the grand purpose of judicial proceedings: the airing of crimes against humanity as a teaching moment and as a ceremonial process for forming human peoples morally. Without that process we all feel entitled to come to a quick moral conclusion on our own because those charged with that process in the social order are dishonest and/or silent.
It is a good point: Eichmann falls short as all historic examples do in novel events. He was rendered somewhat harmless by the fall of his regime and the time that passed between his active participation and his falling into obscurity. Still the example stands as to what the judicial standards has been FOR in crimes against humanity and if it is to be circumvented we have to have very strong reasons WHY this is so. It may seem hairsplitting to have to air those but that might be because we have been so blissfully unaware of what has been going on with targeted killings on the international stage and the conversations that have evolved on whether or not they can be considered just. As it is, it has been a very complicated issue with arguments falling on both sides pro and con, and I think if one is cognizant of them, it is a bit humbling. It isn't at all clear that allowing this could be removing a barrier that allowed us to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys.
The WH's ever-shifting narrative about the status of this "capture or kill" mission leads me to believe that this was a straight up kill mission. I could be persuaded on several counts on why that may have been a just action, on why there is a bin Laden exception, as it were. But if the facts are clouded and continually spun, if we blindly turn away that the political lie that is being cast before us so carelessly, we cannot vet those arguments and give them the moral hearing they deserve. We are left to pretend that all was legitimate and nothing in our military history since WWI has changed. We are left to say that only the end matters and the means should be ignored.
Should the WH come forward and admit what they have done, justice could be served. It would be bold, and morally courageous. Duck and cover on this is just absurd and I can't believe that we are asked to buy the radical shifts in narrative as just "the Fog of War."
Coming forward and giving the bald facts--yes, we went on a kill mission, we've done it before and we'll do it again---is tricky to do when we've publicly criticized Israel on the global stage for these same tactics. It would be a moment of superior moral courage and we could begin to redefine justice in terms that fit the current technological age we've entered where a guy with a limp, a soft handshake, a set of bum kidneys and a computer can wreak bloody havoc and create hell on Earth.
The truth will set you free, it has been said ad nauseum. I'll also add it is impossible to have any justice at all when there is no truth. The truth has yet to be aired. I'm troubled when people act as if that is completely irrelevant. I'm troubled when people think they can come to any kind of moral decision at all when we don't even have the facts.
Without the facts, and without a judicial process on what happened, we have no way to frame our "rejoicing" as rejoicing in justice or rejoicing in vengeance. We have no idea what we are rejoicing about other than an end that all would agree is good. But our moral tradition has always taught that the means are anything but irrelevant. Do we forget? Or is that too refined and abstract?
5.9.2011 | 4:38pm
steve j says:
Interesting reading. I scanned rather than read in detail. One thing I did not see addressed in regard to the killing v capturing of OBL is the long term impact of him as a prisoner. I do not believe there was ever any intent to capture him and bring him to trial. The United States would never allow a trial outside of the US (no international court of criminal justice) for fear of OBL somehow being released, whether through acquittal or a simple technicality. If convicted by such a court would he have suffered a death sentence or life in prison? Imagine the impossible security requirements of either scenario. As a prisoner OBL would be cause célèbre for every hostage taker around the world. How long would governments allow their citizens to be taken hostage and executed pending the release of an imprisoned OBL? What would be the nature of retaliation by his followers to a judicial execution? The only real option when the opportunity presented itself was to kill him. As for consideration to a wife or child seeing the killing, extreme circumstances often require unusual and sometimes harsh actions. It is an unfortunate byproduct of the path OBL had decided upon.
5.9.2011 | 4:41pm
Jonas says:
@ Gregory K Laughlin
First, in those passages, it is the Lord avenging; it is the Lord bringing justice. Those in Revelation are rejoicing that God has righted a wrong, not that man has taken this into his own hands. I’m not saying we need to wait around for God to enact all justice here on earth; I’m simply pointing out the difference between the situations in Revelation and the Osama situation – or any other temporal situations we have.
Second, we can rejoice in God’s “justice,” but this isn’t the same as rejoicing specifically in the death of an individual. For example, I can rejoice in the fact that the world may be safer because Osama is gone; but not in the fact that the individual is dead. Think about it: To wish the death of a person in mortal sin is to wish him/her into Hell, eternal damnation. Personally, I can’t see any wish more un-Christian – and then to rejoice in it?
Third, those in Revelation are in place beyond our temporal earth. Perhaps we need to be in place beyond earth to make these sorts of calls to justice. I find it dangerous to transpose the thoughts and reactions of those in heaven, whether they are God or men, to how we should act on earth. Instead, I look to the example of those on earth in the Bible: Jesus, for example, and how he treated the prostitute or those who crucified him.
Fourth, I think we need to read Revelation understanding it for what it is: a vision of prophetic proportions. I don’t claim to be any sort of Bible scholar, but I know the literary and historical contexts of this text are vastly different than, say, the Gospels. I would think to look to the latter for a guide on how to live life before the former.
Last, I do find the feelings of those expressed in Revelation unsettling. Perhaps just ignoring them isn’t the very best option; but seeing them perhaps more as a reflection of something post-death, outside of our temporal limitations and not as a justification for desiring people dead, seems to jive with the words of Christ a little better, in my mind at least.
First, in those passages, it is the Lord avenging; it is the Lord bringing justice. Those in Revelation are rejoicing that God has righted a wrong, not that man has taken this into his own hands. I’m not saying we need to wait around for God to enact all justice here on earth; I’m simply pointing out the difference between the situations in Revelation and the Osama situation – or any other temporal situations we have.
Second, we can rejoice in God’s “justice,” but this isn’t the same as rejoicing specifically in the death of an individual. For example, I can rejoice in the fact that the world may be safer because Osama is gone; but not in the fact that the individual is dead. Think about it: To wish the death of a person in mortal sin is to wish him/her into Hell, eternal damnation. Personally, I can’t see any wish more un-Christian – and then to rejoice in it?
Third, those in Revelation are in place beyond our temporal earth. Perhaps we need to be in place beyond earth to make these sorts of calls to justice. I find it dangerous to transpose the thoughts and reactions of those in heaven, whether they are God or men, to how we should act on earth. Instead, I look to the example of those on earth in the Bible: Jesus, for example, and how he treated the prostitute or those who crucified him.
Fourth, I think we need to read Revelation understanding it for what it is: a vision of prophetic proportions. I don’t claim to be any sort of Bible scholar, but I know the literary and historical contexts of this text are vastly different than, say, the Gospels. I would think to look to the latter for a guide on how to live life before the former.
Last, I do find the feelings of those expressed in Revelation unsettling. Perhaps just ignoring them isn’t the very best option; but seeing them perhaps more as a reflection of something post-death, outside of our temporal limitations and not as a justification for desiring people dead, seems to jive with the words of Christ a little better, in my mind at least.
5.9.2011 | 4:54pm
David Gray says:
>Last, I do find the feelings of those expressed in Revelation unsettling. Perhaps just ignoring them isn’t the very best option; but seeing them perhaps more as a reflection of something post-death, outside of our temporal limitations and not as a justification for desiring people dead, seems to jive with the words of Christ a little better, in my mind at least.
Except they are consistent with how the righteous are to live in this life as well.
Except they are consistent with how the righteous are to live in this life as well.
5.9.2011 | 5:02pm
Robb says:
The SEAL team that went in and killed Bin Laden did us all a favor by ridding the world of a terrorist who was responsible for bringing so much grief to so many people.
The wonder is why it took long to find him.
The wonder is why it took long to find him.
5.9.2011 | 5:40pm
Michael Kremer says:
@mike @1:26 p.m.
Source for the claim that the orders were to capture if he was not wearing an explosive shirt? I hadn't heard that one before.
Source for the claim that the orders were to capture if he was not wearing an explosive shirt? I hadn't heard that one before.
5.9.2011 | 5:50pm
Don Roberto says:
Robb, he's got a lot of friends. And they're still after us. God grant we may walk the line between defending our dependents with all our ability on the one hand, and on the other sinking to the level of evil of our enemies, i.e., may we emulate Gandalf, and not Saruman.
†
†
5.9.2011 | 6:56pm
Naomi says:
"The problem, let me be clear, is not their concern for law. The problem is that they turn to the law without taking pleasure in the justice they could see had been done."
I would just like to point out that this statement makes no sense at all, especially if we are talking about natural law. Whether or not something is in fact just will depend on "the law". According to many traditions, it is only just to kill a criminal when it is impossible to incarcerate him or render him harmless in some other way, in other words, in a case of self-defense or defense of others. This may be a case of that, but it is far from clear. And I have no idea whether or not to agree with you, since you've said nothing on the issue, just that people should be strong and patriotic enough to celebrate "justice" (which you assert, rather than argue, has been served).
(Also, it's not clear that celebration is always a proper response to justice. Say a friend kills someone in self-defense or in defense of my family (I think this is just). Would it be proper to criticize him for celebrating this event? Uh, maybe, although perhaps unfeeling. Would it be proper to criticize him for not celebrating it, but instead expressing conflicting emotions of sorrow and relief? Hardly.)
So instead, we vilify those who disagree with us, including religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said much the same thing the Vatican said on the issue. I'm sorry, but this journal is now transitioned almost completely into political hackery and sentimental patriotism; instead of religion in the public sphere we get religion in the service of a particular political agenda. Where do I go now for thoughtful engagement with religious and political issues, since I'm deleting this website from my bookmarks and never again renewing my subscription? I'm not angry, just very sad and a little bit sick to my stomach.
I would just like to point out that this statement makes no sense at all, especially if we are talking about natural law. Whether or not something is in fact just will depend on "the law". According to many traditions, it is only just to kill a criminal when it is impossible to incarcerate him or render him harmless in some other way, in other words, in a case of self-defense or defense of others. This may be a case of that, but it is far from clear. And I have no idea whether or not to agree with you, since you've said nothing on the issue, just that people should be strong and patriotic enough to celebrate "justice" (which you assert, rather than argue, has been served).
(Also, it's not clear that celebration is always a proper response to justice. Say a friend kills someone in self-defense or in defense of my family (I think this is just). Would it be proper to criticize him for celebrating this event? Uh, maybe, although perhaps unfeeling. Would it be proper to criticize him for not celebrating it, but instead expressing conflicting emotions of sorrow and relief? Hardly.)
So instead, we vilify those who disagree with us, including religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said much the same thing the Vatican said on the issue. I'm sorry, but this journal is now transitioned almost completely into political hackery and sentimental patriotism; instead of religion in the public sphere we get religion in the service of a particular political agenda. Where do I go now for thoughtful engagement with religious and political issues, since I'm deleting this website from my bookmarks and never again renewing my subscription? I'm not angry, just very sad and a little bit sick to my stomach.
5.9.2011 | 7:41pm
Bop MacGabhann says:
@ Mike Melendez who says: “We (America) are the most diverse successful nation in the world”
See, this is the problem. We’re not, as it happens, but we’re too naive to get it. There are many ways to be diverse, and many ways to measure success. As there are many ways to measure unsuccess (Hello Black Detroit, what’s left of you.) In important ways, no peoples have been even remotely as successful as the Greek and Jewish peoples have been. And least of all, in this respect, we Americans, who remain to have an idea or a thought that we can call our own and which cannot be, as we like to say, “monetized.
And I mean, really? Mechanical failure? I’m embarrassed someone will bring it up.
See, this is the problem. We’re not, as it happens, but we’re too naive to get it. There are many ways to be diverse, and many ways to measure success. As there are many ways to measure unsuccess (Hello Black Detroit, what’s left of you.) In important ways, no peoples have been even remotely as successful as the Greek and Jewish peoples have been. And least of all, in this respect, we Americans, who remain to have an idea or a thought that we can call our own and which cannot be, as we like to say, “monetized.
And I mean, really? Mechanical failure? I’m embarrassed someone will bring it up.
5.9.2011 | 8:47pm
David Gray says:
>According to many traditions, it is only just to kill a criminal when it is impossible to incarcerate him or render him harmless in some other way, in other words, in a case of self-defense or defense of others.
But accordingly to God this is not so as he makes very obvious in both New and Old Testaments.
But accordingly to God this is not so as he makes very obvious in both New and Old Testaments.
5.9.2011 | 8:52pm
andrew says:
even if the author were correct, how dare he paint an entire continent with such a ridiculously broad brush? how does he connect a few scattered op-eds to "europe?"
that he doesn't see the illogical leap is what's most bizarre.
that he doesn't see the illogical leap is what's most bizarre.
5.9.2011 | 9:22pm
David Gray says:
>even if the author were correct, how dare he paint an entire continent with such a ridiculously broad brush? how does he connect a few scattered op-eds to "europe?"
I lived in Europe for six years and I find it an emminently reasonable representation. (and I was reading the Guardian when I had no idea who David Mills was)
I lived in Europe for six years and I find it an emminently reasonable representation. (and I was reading the Guardian when I had no idea who David Mills was)
5.9.2011 | 9:50pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Bop: Yep, here there is a problem.
I only claim us as among the successful nations. Yes, there are others. But there is a difference between cultures and nations. The Jewish nation was destroyed in 70 AD and not reborn until 1948. The current Greek nation is deep in financial insolvency. Both cultures immensely influenced the world but as nations they have some troubles. Though I would say the current Jewish nation, Israel, is fairly successful if embattled.
As to diversity, oh yeah, we still have our problems, but can you name a successful nation that is more diverse than we are? Greece and Israel certainly don't compare. I could name some in Africa that may be argued to be so, but not a one of them is successful. Indeed, their diversity is frequently given as the reason for their lack of success. I would agree that is a source of those nations' problems. And it has been a source of problems for the U.S. We have struggled mightily with the problem and have a ways to go, but I still argue that no other successful nation comes close.
Now you may disagree, but arguing that the words "diverse" and "successful" have no meaning because you don't like the conclusion they lead me to suggests a willful blindness on your part. The U.S. has never had a monoculture, so there is nothing there to unite us. We unite on our symbols based on ideals to refine my former use, i.e. the things we aspire to however much we fail to achieve them. If you disagree with that, where is your counterexample? The successful nations are generally called "First World" and today include South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Point to the one that is more diverse than the U.S. Then, and more important, come up with a better idea for what unites Americans. Try to do so without imposing an ideological monoculture of your own (like "monetized") on us.
I only claim us as among the successful nations. Yes, there are others. But there is a difference between cultures and nations. The Jewish nation was destroyed in 70 AD and not reborn until 1948. The current Greek nation is deep in financial insolvency. Both cultures immensely influenced the world but as nations they have some troubles. Though I would say the current Jewish nation, Israel, is fairly successful if embattled.
As to diversity, oh yeah, we still have our problems, but can you name a successful nation that is more diverse than we are? Greece and Israel certainly don't compare. I could name some in Africa that may be argued to be so, but not a one of them is successful. Indeed, their diversity is frequently given as the reason for their lack of success. I would agree that is a source of those nations' problems. And it has been a source of problems for the U.S. We have struggled mightily with the problem and have a ways to go, but I still argue that no other successful nation comes close.
Now you may disagree, but arguing that the words "diverse" and "successful" have no meaning because you don't like the conclusion they lead me to suggests a willful blindness on your part. The U.S. has never had a monoculture, so there is nothing there to unite us. We unite on our symbols based on ideals to refine my former use, i.e. the things we aspire to however much we fail to achieve them. If you disagree with that, where is your counterexample? The successful nations are generally called "First World" and today include South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Point to the one that is more diverse than the U.S. Then, and more important, come up with a better idea for what unites Americans. Try to do so without imposing an ideological monoculture of your own (like "monetized") on us.
5.9.2011 | 9:58pm
Jeremy says:
Virtually every Democrat is thrilled to be rid of Democrat. On the other hand, it is many pastors who are having a hard time discussing Osama bin Laden: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110508/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_churches
5.9.2011 | 11:05pm
Bop MacGabhann says:
@Mike Melendez who asks: but can you name a successful nation that is more diverse than we are?
By nature of diversity:
Ethnically: Canada
Politically: Brazil
Religiously: India
Culturally: Spain
Philosophically: Germany
Stylistically: Italy
Pragmatically: England
Artistically: France
Humorously: Ireland
Characterally: Russia
Historically: China
Interestingly: You name it…
By nature of diversity:
Ethnically: Canada
Politically: Brazil
Religiously: India
Culturally: Spain
Philosophically: Germany
Stylistically: Italy
Pragmatically: England
Artistically: France
Humorously: Ireland
Characterally: Russia
Historically: China
Interestingly: You name it…
5.10.2011 | 12:52am
mike says:
* Michael Kremer says:
* @mike @1:26 p.m.
* Source for the claim that the orders were to capture if he was not wearing an
* explosive shirt? I hadn't heard that one before.
It was in the news story I read. They didn't use the term exploding shirt but that was the implication. Looking back, I found this quote in a Reuters news story:
"If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that," John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, told reporters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7417S920110503
* @mike @1:26 p.m.
* Source for the claim that the orders were to capture if he was not wearing an
* explosive shirt? I hadn't heard that one before.
It was in the news story I read. They didn't use the term exploding shirt but that was the implication. Looking back, I found this quote in a Reuters news story:
"If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that," John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, told reporters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7417S920110503
5.10.2011 | 1:56am
Patricia says:
I am glad Osama Bin Laden is dead. I hope terrorism, war, violence, crime, discrimination, chaos or bad things will stop so that there would be only peace and love forever here on earth.
5.10.2011 | 2:18am
Rick says:
The contrasting of relative patriotic fervor between American and European nations is well taken. Europeans have been conditioned by now to equate patriotic fervor with fascism or Nazism. While it is overblown for them to make this comparison, there is, of course, something to be said for a loyalty and identity that is rooted in more than one's personal nationality. As Christians, we are obliged to recognize a supra-nationalistic reality that demands a higher allegiance.
However, I was almost tickled to death awhile ago when I was teaching English to a Frenchman online. He asked, with a kind of adoring fascination, if Americans really flew the flag on their houses. I replied that I could look out my window and see U.S. flags flying from a couple of my neighbor's houses. He paused for a moment to absorb that. Then he said, "If I flew the French flag from my house, I think my neighbor would call the police!"
However, I was almost tickled to death awhile ago when I was teaching English to a Frenchman online. He asked, with a kind of adoring fascination, if Americans really flew the flag on their houses. I replied that I could look out my window and see U.S. flags flying from a couple of my neighbor's houses. He paused for a moment to absorb that. Then he said, "If I flew the French flag from my house, I think my neighbor would call the police!"
5.10.2011 | 2:55am
Keith Pavlischek says:
"On balance, and considering the alternatives, America has been and is a force for good in the world."
Just kinda seemed relevant to say it, again.
Also, UBL had almost ten years to surrender, repent of his evil and wicked ways, and do his moral and legal duty to tell lawful authorities everything he knows about Al Qaeda and their evil and wicked plans and all their techniques, tactics and procedures. Its a tad late for that sort of thing when the long arm of the law--the SEALS in this case--come crashing into your hide-out in the middle of the night, and it is simply perverse to second guess (from the comfort of your living rooms and offices) the guys tasked with the mission. If, in this context, there is even a shred of doubt about whether UBL has surrendered and become utterly passive and limp with non-resistance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the SEALS. It is not even a close call.
Just kinda seemed relevant to say it, again.
Also, UBL had almost ten years to surrender, repent of his evil and wicked ways, and do his moral and legal duty to tell lawful authorities everything he knows about Al Qaeda and their evil and wicked plans and all their techniques, tactics and procedures. Its a tad late for that sort of thing when the long arm of the law--the SEALS in this case--come crashing into your hide-out in the middle of the night, and it is simply perverse to second guess (from the comfort of your living rooms and offices) the guys tasked with the mission. If, in this context, there is even a shred of doubt about whether UBL has surrendered and become utterly passive and limp with non-resistance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the SEALS. It is not even a close call.
5.10.2011 | 5:24am
Michael PS says:
Watching the jubilation surrounding the news of Bin Ladin's killing, I was reminded of Charles Dickens's letter to the Times, after witnessing the execution of the Mannings in 1849:
"When the sun rose brightly – as it did pp it gilded thousands upon thousands of upturned faces, so inexpressibly odious in their brutal mirth or callousness, that a man had cause to feel ashamed of the shape he wore, and to shrink from himself, as fashioned in the image of the Devil. When the two miserable creatures who attracted all this ghastly sight about them were turned quivering into the air, there was no more emotion, no more pity, no more thought that two immortal souls had gone to judgement, no more restraint in any of the previous obscenities, than if the name of Christ had never been heard in this world, and there were no belief among men but that they perished like the beasts.”
But then, I'm a European
"When the sun rose brightly – as it did pp it gilded thousands upon thousands of upturned faces, so inexpressibly odious in their brutal mirth or callousness, that a man had cause to feel ashamed of the shape he wore, and to shrink from himself, as fashioned in the image of the Devil. When the two miserable creatures who attracted all this ghastly sight about them were turned quivering into the air, there was no more emotion, no more pity, no more thought that two immortal souls had gone to judgement, no more restraint in any of the previous obscenities, than if the name of Christ had never been heard in this world, and there were no belief among men but that they perished like the beasts.”
But then, I'm a European
5.10.2011 | 5:40am
Simon Philips says:
The situation should take as a lesson for everyone that "A man who lives with the gun dies with the gun". I believe that UBL deserves what he gets because he has taken many lives already. He has taken innocent lives. I hope this will not be over, I hope all terrorist around the world should be killed. There where countries who suffered also by some terrorist groups but the local officials got nothing to do over the years. America should also help other countries like this. Help eliminate small terrorist groups that will turn into large scale terrorist.
5.10.2011 | 5:58am
Ian M says:
With regard to the statements about OBL being shot in front of his wife and child. I feel no pity towards the former. She was as guilty as him. The child though was innocent. Having said that, and as unfortunate as it is, the Servicemen involved had a job to do, which they did without having the luxury of time for consideration of "innocent" onlookers!
5.10.2011 | 9:28am
MsjotMarine says:
Great article on the hypocrisy of European liberals but liberals are no different no matter where they live. American liberals are mirroring these same points of view. We warriors look at the world differently. To us there are three types of people in the world. Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs and liberals cannot discern the difference between the sheepdog that protects them (sheep) and the wolves that seek to kill and feed on them. Now the Sheepdog must protect themselves from the sheep instead of hunting and killing the wolf.
5.10.2011 | 9:37am
David Gray says:
>But then, I'm a European
These days it might indicate you'd be likely to know Dickens better than the scriptures...
These days it might indicate you'd be likely to know Dickens better than the scriptures...
5.10.2011 | 9:42am
LadyFerret says:
There is little doubt that the ISIA knew UBL was in that safe house. The ISIA is a ruthless and relatively efficient intelligence agency with good HumInt resources. As such they had to know he was there. UBL lived in the same house for 6 years without security personnel because he was sheltered by the Pakistan government. Killing UBL was a sound option considering the fact that suicide vests were a common weapon used by UBL and his people.
5.10.2011 | 9:49am
Mike Melendez says:
@Bop:
You seem to be more interested in fashion than in reality. Some of your selected countries are second world, including China. Some of your selected diversities are purely subjective. In fact, most of them are stereotypes. As to the diversity that can be measured: Canada more ethnically diverse than the U.S.? Who are you kidding? India more religiously diverse than the U.S.? Now you have an argument. However, India is also second world.
But I do like your claim that Ireland is the most Humorously diverse. That suggests you're trying to diffuse the situation.
You seem to be more interested in fashion than in reality. Some of your selected countries are second world, including China. Some of your selected diversities are purely subjective. In fact, most of them are stereotypes. As to the diversity that can be measured: Canada more ethnically diverse than the U.S.? Who are you kidding? India more religiously diverse than the U.S.? Now you have an argument. However, India is also second world.
But I do like your claim that Ireland is the most Humorously diverse. That suggests you're trying to diffuse the situation.
5.10.2011 | 11:42am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
@Jonas,
Your explanation might work were Revelation the only place in Scripture that shows God's people rejoicing in His delivering justice and were it only to occur when He did so directly and not through human agents. However, there are numerous examples from the Old Testament in which His people on earth rejoice in His delivering justice and in Romans St. Paul tells us explicitly that He uses human government to do so. So, how do you address those examples?
Your explanation might work were Revelation the only place in Scripture that shows God's people rejoicing in His delivering justice and were it only to occur when He did so directly and not through human agents. However, there are numerous examples from the Old Testament in which His people on earth rejoice in His delivering justice and in Romans St. Paul tells us explicitly that He uses human government to do so. So, how do you address those examples?
5.10.2011 | 2:58pm
Jonas says:
@ Gregory K. Laughlin
Ezekiel: “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live,” says the Lord.
So how does this fit with Revelation and other verses that seem to show people rejoicing in the death of the wicked? I think that one ways it works is to understand that we can and should rejoice in justice, but not in the death of a person. If God has no “pleasure in the death of anyone,” I don’t think we should. We should take pleasure in righteousness, not the fact that a person has been killed and potentially sent to Hell.
Rejoicing purely in the death of an individual who is in mortal sin is to rejoice in the fact that someone will be punished eternally. This wish or desire of ours is disordered.
I don’t know if you’re Catholic, but the Vatican echoes my thoughts; or more rightly, my thoughts echo their words: “‘A Christian never rejoices’ in the death of any man, no matter how evil, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said, but instead ‘reflects on the serious responsibility each and every one of us has before God and before man.’”
To see the distinction between a) rejoicing in the fact that someone is dead and b) being happy that God’s justice has been served is critical to this situation. This allows us to make sense of what might seem contradictory in the Scriptures.
Ezekiel: “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live,” says the Lord.
So how does this fit with Revelation and other verses that seem to show people rejoicing in the death of the wicked? I think that one ways it works is to understand that we can and should rejoice in justice, but not in the death of a person. If God has no “pleasure in the death of anyone,” I don’t think we should. We should take pleasure in righteousness, not the fact that a person has been killed and potentially sent to Hell.
Rejoicing purely in the death of an individual who is in mortal sin is to rejoice in the fact that someone will be punished eternally. This wish or desire of ours is disordered.
I don’t know if you’re Catholic, but the Vatican echoes my thoughts; or more rightly, my thoughts echo their words: “‘A Christian never rejoices’ in the death of any man, no matter how evil, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said, but instead ‘reflects on the serious responsibility each and every one of us has before God and before man.’”
To see the distinction between a) rejoicing in the fact that someone is dead and b) being happy that God’s justice has been served is critical to this situation. This allows us to make sense of what might seem contradictory in the Scriptures.
5.10.2011 | 3:55pm
David Gray says:
>So how does this fit with Revelation and other verses that seem to show people rejoicing in the death of the wicked? I think that one ways it works is to understand that we can and should rejoice in justice, but not in the death of a person.
Squaring verses that show the righteous rejoicing in the death of the wicked by deciding that we shouldn't rejoice in the death of the wicked isn't very compelling.
Squaring verses that show the righteous rejoicing in the death of the wicked by deciding that we shouldn't rejoice in the death of the wicked isn't very compelling.
5.10.2011 | 4:36pm
tmr-brat says:
From the cocktail list of a New York watering hole:
Double Hit ... two shots of the whiskey of your choice, and Osama's Bin Shot ... one shot of vodka and one of bloody red Grenadine.
This round's on me.
Double Hit ... two shots of the whiskey of your choice, and Osama's Bin Shot ... one shot of vodka and one of bloody red Grenadine.
This round's on me.
5.10.2011 | 4:56pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Well, Jonas, maybe we are not as far apart as I feared. As I have noted elsewhere, I do not rejoice in the death per se of bin Laden, but in the fact that justice was done. Unfortunately, in bin Laden's case, his execution was the only means by which justice could be done. And, of course, we rejoice in the execution of temporal justice. We do not know and should not speculate upon what eternal fate awaits bin Laden. That is for the Lord to decide.
5.10.2011 | 5:02pm
Jonas says:
@ David Gray
That's why I said "seem to rejoice in the death of the wicked." The "seem" is a big word. If you read the above quotations from Revelation as quoted by Gregory K, you can see that people are rejoicing in God's judgements and justice, not simply in the death of specific individuals.
Also, how would you "square" the Ezekiel quotation I quoted above with your ideas of rejoicing in the death of people? “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live,” says the Lord.
That's why I said "seem to rejoice in the death of the wicked." The "seem" is a big word. If you read the above quotations from Revelation as quoted by Gregory K, you can see that people are rejoicing in God's judgements and justice, not simply in the death of specific individuals.
Also, how would you "square" the Ezekiel quotation I quoted above with your ideas of rejoicing in the death of people? “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live,” says the Lord.
5.10.2011 | 5:09pm
Jonas says:
I agree, Gregory K, I hope and think we are using different words/phrases to express essentially the same thing.
5.10.2011 | 5:13pm
andrew says:
"We warriors look at the world differently. To us there are three types of people in the world."
is no one else frightened at this type of idiocy? maybe there is no difference between the taliban and the michigan militia.
mr. gray, if i had to choose between knowing dickens and "knowing" scriptures to the point of -- for example -- believing that God commanded the israelites to commit genocide agaisnt the canaanites "because the text is there," i'll take dickens any day. one can make the bible/koran mean and justify anything.
is no one else frightened at this type of idiocy? maybe there is no difference between the taliban and the michigan militia.
mr. gray, if i had to choose between knowing dickens and "knowing" scriptures to the point of -- for example -- believing that God commanded the israelites to commit genocide agaisnt the canaanites "because the text is there," i'll take dickens any day. one can make the bible/koran mean and justify anything.
5.10.2011 | 6:07pm
David Gray says:
>That's why I said "seem to rejoice in the death of the wicked." The "seem" is a big word. If you read the above quotations from Revelation as quoted by Gregory K, you can see that people are rejoicing in God's judgements and justice, not simply in the death of specific individuals.
I think that's a better distinction. But in the application Bin Laden's death was justice.
I think that's a better distinction. But in the application Bin Laden's death was justice.
5.10.2011 | 6:07pm
David Gray says:
>mr. gray, if i had to choose between knowing dickens and "knowing" scriptures to the point of -- for example -- believing that God commanded the israelites to commit genocide agaisnt the canaanites "because the text is there," i'll take dickens any day
I believe you are telling the truth.
I believe you are telling the truth.
5.10.2011 | 11:32pm
Richard Aubrey says:
Don't know if this was part of the administration's calculations, but the difficulty of trying KSM, either at Gitmo or in NYC--or elsewhere in the US--would be exponentially worse with OBL.
We managed to ignore Nidal Hasan until too late. How many others are being officially ignored until four or five of them decide to get together to do a Beslan in, say, Iowa? And having OBL in jail in Manhattan might spark the idea in some of his coreligionists. Although, to be honest, chances are it's already in the works and OBL being in NYC would only speed things up.
We managed to ignore Nidal Hasan until too late. How many others are being officially ignored until four or five of them decide to get together to do a Beslan in, say, Iowa? And having OBL in jail in Manhattan might spark the idea in some of his coreligionists. Although, to be honest, chances are it's already in the works and OBL being in NYC would only speed things up.
5.11.2011 | 12:36am
rasqual says:
Wow, no one's mentioned imprecatory Psalms yet?
And Romans 13 is alluded to just once, in passing?
As for genocide against the Canaanites, I've never understood why folks take offense at God doing so mediately through Israel on the one hand, whereas often these same folks nod happily at genocides which have taken place suddenly through natural calamities, or gradually through evolution. It's as if they're too moral to consider being agents of God's wrath -- let impersonal natural forces do his bidding, but leave us the hell out of it.
Weird.
And Romans 13 is alluded to just once, in passing?
As for genocide against the Canaanites, I've never understood why folks take offense at God doing so mediately through Israel on the one hand, whereas often these same folks nod happily at genocides which have taken place suddenly through natural calamities, or gradually through evolution. It's as if they're too moral to consider being agents of God's wrath -- let impersonal natural forces do his bidding, but leave us the hell out of it.
Weird.
5.11.2011 | 3:03am
VRWC says:
i noticed someone upthread rehashed the whole "CIA used to support bin Laden during the Cold War" deal.
this really needs to be put to rest. the Afghan mujahideen in the '80s =/= the Taliban and/or al Qaeda. not that some people involved in the former conflict may not have gone on to support them ideologically, but they were formed later, they didn't exist then. as for bin Laden's Arab mujahideen in the '80s, he had his own resources. they may've fought for the same cause but that did not make them the dominant force or who the U.S. was financing.
i'm also curious as to what the people with 20/20 hindsight would've done in this situation? i mean discussing the U.S.'s post-Cold War policy there is legit but otherwise what are we arguing, that a continued Soviet-imposed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan would've been a workers' paradise? or that when the USSR collapsed there would've been a better outcome there if we hadn't supported the mujahideen? it just seems pointless to me.
this really needs to be put to rest. the Afghan mujahideen in the '80s =/= the Taliban and/or al Qaeda. not that some people involved in the former conflict may not have gone on to support them ideologically, but they were formed later, they didn't exist then. as for bin Laden's Arab mujahideen in the '80s, he had his own resources. they may've fought for the same cause but that did not make them the dominant force or who the U.S. was financing.
i'm also curious as to what the people with 20/20 hindsight would've done in this situation? i mean discussing the U.S.'s post-Cold War policy there is legit but otherwise what are we arguing, that a continued Soviet-imposed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan would've been a workers' paradise? or that when the USSR collapsed there would've been a better outcome there if we hadn't supported the mujahideen? it just seems pointless to me.
5.11.2011 | 3:55am
Californio says:
Read the essay "The Jacksonian Tradition" about one socio-political subset of America. Then please, please just leave us alone. The Jacksonians will leave you (in the world) alone as well - really - they have no interest in meddling in others affairs. Yet when outsiders fire at an American who they hate, and end up hitting Jacksonians, well then it is a clannish response that is set in motion. Be thankful we didn't carpet bomb Osama's neighborhood. Again - read the essay noted above......
5.11.2011 | 6:08am
Akatsukami says:
This is really of a piece with Obama's repeated denial of American exceptionalism: we'll act just like Russia or China now.
5.11.2011 | 6:54am
Gringo says:
For those oh-so-nuanced Europeans abhorring American Cowboy Justice, who state that Bin Laden should have been put on trial, I suggest that they comment on how effective the trial for Milosovec was. It went on four years without resolution until Milosovec died.
The European-inspired intervention in Libya has thus far been singularly ineffective.
The European-inspired intervention in Libya has thus far been singularly ineffective.
5.11.2011 | 9:44am
Matt says:
European or not is quite irrelevant. The argument itself is the issue. I am an American but find myself in agreement with the Europeans.
OBL deserved justice - to die by execution.
But by forfeiting capture missions in the name of assassinations and drone missile launches this president enjoys the political benefits of toughness without the hard work - of gathering intelligence or answering for his tactics. And the emotional lift of killing big targets only enhances that effect.
What about the slippery slope of extra-judicial assassinations? These are only the public ones.
What about the opportunity cost of lost intelligence? Does he forgo intelligence in the name of running his re-election campaign?
What about Obama's political self-interest (and hypocrisy) posing as a man of international law and diplomacy while doing whatever his realpolitik impulses tell him.
I am appalled to see so few journalists left or right asking the REAL questions about this man's tactics or calculations, instead focusing on whether waterboarding worked, what the Europeans thinks, or some other nonsense. What about Obama, and what he is thinking and doing?
OBL deserved justice - to die by execution.
But by forfeiting capture missions in the name of assassinations and drone missile launches this president enjoys the political benefits of toughness without the hard work - of gathering intelligence or answering for his tactics. And the emotional lift of killing big targets only enhances that effect.
What about the slippery slope of extra-judicial assassinations? These are only the public ones.
What about the opportunity cost of lost intelligence? Does he forgo intelligence in the name of running his re-election campaign?
What about Obama's political self-interest (and hypocrisy) posing as a man of international law and diplomacy while doing whatever his realpolitik impulses tell him.
I am appalled to see so few journalists left or right asking the REAL questions about this man's tactics or calculations, instead focusing on whether waterboarding worked, what the Europeans thinks, or some other nonsense. What about Obama, and what he is thinking and doing?
5.11.2011 | 10:26am
Joe Hooker says:
I would answer with the words of Clint Eastwood's character William Money in the movie Unforgiven. When Money shoots someone Sheriff Little Bill says "you just shot an unarmed man!" to which Money replies "Well, he should'a armed himself."
5.11.2011 | 12:27pm
willis says:
"Was President Barack Obama’s rough justice—though put across more eruditely and logically than President George W. Bush ever managed to do—any different to that meted out by Saddam Hussein towards his enemies?”
Why yes, as a matter of fact it was. President Obama's and by extension, all of America's, justice was meted out to a barbaric savage who murdered our citizens en masse. Saddam Hussein's justice which even effete Europeans would admit went a little beyond being "rough," was meted out to those guilty of having offended him.
Would that we had not protected the Europeans from the Nazis. All those poor Nazis we killed when we should have captured them all and put them on trial for tresspassing. Better yet, we should have watched and cheered while they raped, murdered and pillaged a Europe that was totally deserving of it.
Why yes, as a matter of fact it was. President Obama's and by extension, all of America's, justice was meted out to a barbaric savage who murdered our citizens en masse. Saddam Hussein's justice which even effete Europeans would admit went a little beyond being "rough," was meted out to those guilty of having offended him.
Would that we had not protected the Europeans from the Nazis. All those poor Nazis we killed when we should have captured them all and put them on trial for tresspassing. Better yet, we should have watched and cheered while they raped, murdered and pillaged a Europe that was totally deserving of it.
5.11.2011 | 12:37pm
Jonas says:
@rasqual
“…whereas often these same folks nod happily at genocides which have taken place suddenly through natural calamities, or gradually through evolution.”
Exactly WHO is nodding happily at genocides that happen through natural calamities, or gradually through evolution? Exactly who are these people? Even if some people might be in this category, that does nothing to excuse it; it is abhorrent. Second, those people who would be “nodding happily” would most likely NOT be against the Israelites destroying the Canaanites.
I’m not arguing against God’s actions in the Old Testament. I’m simply taking issue with the logic and evidence you are using to justify it.
“…whereas often these same folks nod happily at genocides which have taken place suddenly through natural calamities, or gradually through evolution.”
Exactly WHO is nodding happily at genocides that happen through natural calamities, or gradually through evolution? Exactly who are these people? Even if some people might be in this category, that does nothing to excuse it; it is abhorrent. Second, those people who would be “nodding happily” would most likely NOT be against the Israelites destroying the Canaanites.
I’m not arguing against God’s actions in the Old Testament. I’m simply taking issue with the logic and evidence you are using to justify it.
5.11.2011 | 3:06pm
Timothy says:
Are there flags and borders and national patriotism in the Kingdom of God?
Are there Jews and Gentiles, slaves or free, male or female, American or European in the Kingdom of God,
or are we one in Christ?
Does Jesus weep more for American dead over against people of any other nation?
Are we supposed to take the speck out of our neighbor’s eye while we have a log in our own eye? Or, are we the unique, superior people who do not have logs in our eyes?
As to the death of OBL, I do not think we had any “sinless options.” His death might have been the best we could do in a world in captivity to sin. Yet I do not see it as cause for celebration and partying. It is a sign that we have been saved and we are still in need of saving through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Are there Jews and Gentiles, slaves or free, male or female, American or European in the Kingdom of God,
or are we one in Christ?
Does Jesus weep more for American dead over against people of any other nation?
Are we supposed to take the speck out of our neighbor’s eye while we have a log in our own eye? Or, are we the unique, superior people who do not have logs in our eyes?
As to the death of OBL, I do not think we had any “sinless options.” His death might have been the best we could do in a world in captivity to sin. Yet I do not see it as cause for celebration and partying. It is a sign that we have been saved and we are still in need of saving through our Lord Jesus Christ.
5.11.2011 | 3:46pm
Buzz says:
Not for nothing is London's Ken Livingston known as "Red Ken."
This whole phenomenon is nothing new: even during the Cold War, you'd see Europeans prefering "stability" to confrontation, and that's why Reagan so upset them. I would like to note in contrast that, except for the inital decay, the grave is also quite stable.
This whole phenomenon is nothing new: even during the Cold War, you'd see Europeans prefering "stability" to confrontation, and that's why Reagan so upset them. I would like to note in contrast that, except for the inital decay, the grave is also quite stable.
5.11.2011 | 3:49pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Actually, Timothy, there may. The scriptures, including the Revelation to John, refer to nations, tribes, and aother groupings of people. I suspect we may belong to more than one group, and in fact dozens or hundreds of groups, as the pie is sliced differently in different circumstances of heavenly worship, purely for pleasure.
As to European intellectuals, they prefer condescending to reasoning. They are well practiced in appearing to engage in the latter while providing only the former. Tut-tut. Many Americans, including especially liberals, are susceptible to that tactic. Yet if one goes in prepared to discount all arguments based on sly social expression, searching only for the stripped logical content, one finds that it is not difficult to withstand Europeans at all.
As to European intellectuals, they prefer condescending to reasoning. They are well practiced in appearing to engage in the latter while providing only the former. Tut-tut. Many Americans, including especially liberals, are susceptible to that tactic. Yet if one goes in prepared to discount all arguments based on sly social expression, searching only for the stripped logical content, one finds that it is not difficult to withstand Europeans at all.
5.12.2011 | 2:30pm
Gregory K Laughlin says:
@Timothy,
You'll have to explain to me how the U.S. Navy SEALS killing UBL is sinful. The SEALS were not acting on their own behalf, but on behalf of a government, a government into whose hands God has placed the sword to execute justice. If ever death by the hand of the state was the only just response, it certainly was in the case of UBL. And, I neither celebrated or partied, but I did and do rejoice.
By the way, I reject the theological position that we ever are confronted with situations in which there are no sinless options. I have friends who hold to this view whom I greatly admire, but on this point, I believe that their position is decidedly unbiblical. Indeed, if such were the case, then the author of the epistle to the Hebrews erred when he wrote: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." In what sense could it be said that our Lord was "in every respect . . . tempted as we are, yet without sin" if, in fact, we are tempted by situations which offer no sinless option and He was not? We know He was not tempted by situations which offered no sinless option because He never sinned. Yet, if we are so tempted, then He was not "in every repect . . . tempted as we are."
You'll have to explain to me how the U.S. Navy SEALS killing UBL is sinful. The SEALS were not acting on their own behalf, but on behalf of a government, a government into whose hands God has placed the sword to execute justice. If ever death by the hand of the state was the only just response, it certainly was in the case of UBL. And, I neither celebrated or partied, but I did and do rejoice.
By the way, I reject the theological position that we ever are confronted with situations in which there are no sinless options. I have friends who hold to this view whom I greatly admire, but on this point, I believe that their position is decidedly unbiblical. Indeed, if such were the case, then the author of the epistle to the Hebrews erred when he wrote: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." In what sense could it be said that our Lord was "in every respect . . . tempted as we are, yet without sin" if, in fact, we are tempted by situations which offer no sinless option and He was not? We know He was not tempted by situations which offered no sinless option because He never sinned. Yet, if we are so tempted, then He was not "in every repect . . . tempted as we are."
6.8.2011 | 10:33pm
Delois Thyberg says:
>Last, I do find the feelings of those expressed in Revelation unsettling. Perhaps just ignoring them isnt the very best option; but seeing them perhaps more as a reflection of something post-death, outside of our temporal limitations and not as a justification for desiring people dead, seems to jive with the words of Christ a little better, in my mind at least. i guess respect should be given to the Americans who celebrated the death of Osama. After all, their relatives had been killed and they mourned for what happened to them.
6.18.2011 | 6:34pm
Geissler Forex says:
The burial at sea appears a little bit strange to me. Maybe OBL followers might have tried to get the body back and more lives would have been needlessly lost. For those oh-so-nuanced Europeans abhorring American Cowboy Justice, who state that Bin Laden should have been put on trial, I suggest that they comment on how effective the trial for Milosovec was. It went on four years without resolution until Milosovec died.
7.2.2011 | 10:09am
Gilana Miles says:
The cartwheels of joy executed at the White House over the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden are premature and utterly deceptive.
Where's the proof?
Never mind the hocus-pocus declaration that bin Laden's body had to be "dumped" into the sea for religious purposes.
We're talking about a man responsible for having thousands of Americans killed. Therefore his body -- assuming that whatever was "dumped" in the ocean actually was bin Laden -- should have been brought to the United States where any doubt about mis-identification would have been removed. The world's public deserved proof-positive and nothing less.
No matter what rationalizations the gloating president of the United States may present, doubt will be the order of the century about whether or not the real bin Laden was killed because the actual body was not brought home.
But let's assume -- painful as it may be -- that Barack Obama is telling the truth. So, what if bin Laden has been killed; how much of a difference will it make in terms of war or peace?
Does that mean militant Islam suddenly will retreat from its anti-American, Anti-Israel policies of eventually colonizing the world and, of course, wiping Israel off the map?
Not a chance.
Only the likes of Pollyanna, Snow White and Cinderella would believe that any tangible good will emerge from the bin Laden hullabaloo.
Where's the proof?
Never mind the hocus-pocus declaration that bin Laden's body had to be "dumped" into the sea for religious purposes.
We're talking about a man responsible for having thousands of Americans killed. Therefore his body -- assuming that whatever was "dumped" in the ocean actually was bin Laden -- should have been brought to the United States where any doubt about mis-identification would have been removed. The world's public deserved proof-positive and nothing less.
No matter what rationalizations the gloating president of the United States may present, doubt will be the order of the century about whether or not the real bin Laden was killed because the actual body was not brought home.
But let's assume -- painful as it may be -- that Barack Obama is telling the truth. So, what if bin Laden has been killed; how much of a difference will it make in terms of war or peace?
Does that mean militant Islam suddenly will retreat from its anti-American, Anti-Israel policies of eventually colonizing the world and, of course, wiping Israel off the map?
Not a chance.
Only the likes of Pollyanna, Snow White and Cinderella would believe that any tangible good will emerge from the bin Laden hullabaloo.
7.27.2011 | 2:53pm
Dawn Pugh says:
Hi David;
I wanted to add a few quotes which came to mind as I read your article;
Mao Tse Tung was a Communist breaking several million eggs in order to make the new society omelet.
“Although I cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes”
George Bernard Shaw
Revenge or vengeance consists of retaliation against a person or group in response to perceived wrongdoing.
"Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged".
Samuel Johnson
"A simple rule in dealing with those who are hard to get along with is to remember that this person is striving to assert his superiority; and you must deal with him from that point of view".
Alfred Adler
Regards
Dawn Pugh
I wanted to add a few quotes which came to mind as I read your article;
Mao Tse Tung was a Communist breaking several million eggs in order to make the new society omelet.
“Although I cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes”
George Bernard Shaw
Revenge or vengeance consists of retaliation against a person or group in response to perceived wrongdoing.
"Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged".
Samuel Johnson
"A simple rule in dealing with those who are hard to get along with is to remember that this person is striving to assert his superiority; and you must deal with him from that point of view".
Alfred Adler
Regards
Dawn Pugh
9.16.2011 | 3:11am
Tom says:
The whole thing is quite unclear to me. Killing Osama Bin Laden is OK in the eyes of justice. However, there are many weird things that trouble my not so perceptive mind. Why did they get rid oh his body so quickly? Why did they toss him in the sea, when he could be buried in the ground? What's more, there was no proper forensics stuff done before getting rid of the body. Or was it? There are no photos shown to the public in excuse for very brutal images. The whole thing is very secretive to me. What’s even funnier – we never saw him alive in any good quality news or any other channel. Just in some Arabian video flicks and junky – monkey videos done with an amateur camera. The guy is the most secretive and ghost like terrorist I have ever heard of. And when we find him, well what a coincidence – we still don’t get at least one good video shot of his whole face and body. Just some stupid photos of his back…
It’s the same with Hitler…they claim, he shot himself, but nobody saw his body. Cool.
It's just my two cents.
It’s the same with Hitler…they claim, he shot himself, but nobody saw his body. Cool.
It's just my two cents.
10.13.2011 | 10:38am
Paul says:
I entirely agree with David Mills, though, that the responses of the Europeans cited here stem not from any sort of genuine religious humility or rectitude, but rather from effete resentment and cowardice.
10.20.2011 | 12:31am
Grayson says:
The question that I'm struggling with myself to answer is that "If you (bin laden or any terrorist for that matter) condemn the creation/existence/actions of the establishment (the USA), are you entitled to the judicial protections of that establishment?"
Does our governmental "system" have a legitimate reason to protect itself against lethal threats?
If a person was being attacked by lethal force, its not the persons responsibility to give the attacker a chance to chance his mind, back off, or run away. The attacker would be met with an equivocal lethal force.
Bin Laden attacking the system should not be protected by due process that the system supports.
Does our governmental "system" have a legitimate reason to protect itself against lethal threats?
If a person was being attacked by lethal force, its not the persons responsibility to give the attacker a chance to chance his mind, back off, or run away. The attacker would be met with an equivocal lethal force.
Bin Laden attacking the system should not be protected by due process that the system supports.
on the other hand, point is taken to that someone who said that Osama should have undergone a trial especially if a country practices democracy. :)