The Dangers of Perfectionism
May 16, 2011
R.R. Reno
Here in New York, as you might expect, the news of Osama bin Laden’s death was mostly greeted with fist-pumping expressions of satisfaction. Some, however, have expressed dismay. As our executive editor David Mills noted on these electronic pages, not a few European commentators have denounced the killing of Osama bin Laden as yet another example of the cowboy mentality in America that shoots first and asks questions later. What we should have done, they say, is arrest bin Laden and put him on trial.
At first glance, it seems that the critics have the moral high ground. Nearly everyone accepts that bin Laden was a wicked man who ought to be punished. But isn’t the formal apparatus of properly administered justice—authorized arrest, restrained use of force, procedurally structured trial, and officially sanctioned punishment—superior to the rough justice administered by the Navy Seals?
What seems so is not always so, and many critics of the strike authorized by President Obama exemplify a perennial temptation: to champion what is ideal, and in so doing undermine what is possible.
I have a great deal of experience with this temptation. I’ll argue for the ideal, but blinded by my vision of perfection ignore the circumstances and denounce those who recognize the need for compromises. The all too frequent result: My views are rejected as unrealistic, and more ruthless, practical men gain control.
During the last presidential campaign and after the election, Obama and his supporters denounced Guantanamo and the anti-terrorism policies it represents. There were subtle legal arguments, some of which doubtless had merit. But for the most part the ongoing objections to Guantanamo and all that it represents (detaining suspects without charges, military tribunals, “enhanced” interrogation, and so forth) amounts to a claim that America should be on the side of “real” justice rather than “rogue” or “cowboy” justice.
It all sounds very morally superior, but the Obama administration, wrote a former U.S. attorney general last October in the Wall Street Journal, “seems to present us only with the choice that we kill [terrorists] with drones or give them Miranda warnings and access to a 24-karat justice system designed for conventional criminals.” Substitute Noam Chomsky or your favorite columnist at the Guardian newspaper in Britain for “the government,” and make the “them” into “him,” and Michael Mukasey’s formulation provides a succinct description of the moral terrain that the dreamy internationalism and legalistic fantasies of the left (mostly, though not exclusively) created with it’s shrill denunciations of Guantanamo and other Bush era policies. The cry has been, in essence, “We demand 24-karat justice.”
This has created political pressure to minimize and weaken the emergence of a form of legality that, however imperfect, can actually function to bring justice to people like Osama bin Laden. Many critics thought this a moral gain. A bad system has been de-legitimized! But the virtue of justice is practical, not theoretical.
A 24-karat justice glitters, but those who demand it when it cannot be found end up condemning what is imperfect but feasible without providing a viable alternative. As Mukasey suggests, an inflexible demand for perfect justice often ensures that justice is not done at all, because those who have to make the political decisions will end up dismissing justice as impractical.
Thus the actual and unexpected result of denunciations of a Guantanamo-oriented approach: Our political leaders have few practical options other than assassination. It’s a morally impoverished situation that lends itself to greater injustice—and it’s one that irresponsible calls for justice have done a great deal to create.
Decades ago, as a young pastor in Detroit, Reinhold Neibuhr didn’t foresee our war on terror, but he recognized the tendency of a moral idealism to do more harm than good. We should have ideals, thought Neibuhr, but we shouldn’t let them paralyze us in our efforts to achieve an always relative, always temporary justice in practical affairs. Rejecting the inevitable compromises and imperfections and injustices of workable plans, policies, and initiatives out of a superior loyalty to an ideal is a sign of self-complimenting moralism, not Christian responsibility.
No morally serious person can imagine that, given present political, social, and legal reality, someone like bin Laden can be tried in a criminal court in New York, or for that matter in the Hague. It’s irresponsible to suggest otherwise, even if one’s irresponsibility is expressed by way of lofty appeals to legality and justice. Indeed, the suggestion works against justice, because it encourages a lack of moral realism that makes amoral realism seem like the only realistic option.
An Obama administration spokesman has indicated that, if circumstances had permitted, bin Laden would have been taken captive. I don’t doubt that to be true. But I would be shocked if the soldiers were not briefed to read those circumstances very narrowly.
For although I disagree with many of the moral and political views of Obama and his advisors, I’m fairly confident of their intelligence and commitment to defend both America and the international order against the moral nihilism of Islamic terrorism. A captive bin Laden would have been a massive political liability, not only domestically, but also internationally—precisely because we have no workable legal mechanisms to bring him to justice, mechanisms that have a modicum of credibility and do not put whole populations at risk.
Obama recognized as much, thankfully. The job of the morally serious critic? Get to work designing alternatives that, in the future, an American president can actually use. First stop: Talk to John Yoo, someone who knows what it means to take responsibility for designing workable alternatives to the unworkable fantasy of 24-karat justice. You’ll get some legal ideas for him, as well as some good counsel about how much moral courage it will take to endure the condemnations of the moral purists.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Michael Mukasey’s How a Bagram Detainee Foiled the Euro Terror Plot” from the Wall Street Journal of October 8, 2010.
Comments:
5.16.2011 | 5:40am
Corenlius Bray says:
Facts: 1. Bin Laden chose to "live by the sword" and could have no complaints.
2. The White House as always, were economical with the truth in its description of the raid. We now know Bin laden could have been taken alive.
I am an "outsider" from Ireland but not a liberal European. I am grateful for the extent to which the US shielded us from evils such as communism et al in the second half of the 20th century.
I find that the "situation ethics" which characterise this article, inevitably, do not add up. The premise is that "No morally serious person can imagine that, given present political, social, and legal reality, someone like bin Laden can be tried in a criminal court in New York, or for that matter in the Hague." So the alternatives are (1) you summarily kill him, or (2) you let him stay at large, or , (3) you give him long term detention without trial.
Surely long term detention without trial is the most acceptable form of Neibuhr's contention that "we shouldn’t let them (ideals) paralyze us in our efforts to achieve an always relative, always temporary justice in practical affairs. The "present political, social, and legal reality" will not last forever, and in time could facilitate a trial.
Given the diluted nature of his influence before his death, the statement that "A captive bin Laden would have been a massive political liability, not only domestically, but also internationally—precisely because we have no workable legal mechanisms to bring him to justice, mechanisms that have a modicum of credibility and do not put whole populations at risk" - is exaggerated. In fact the present political, social, and legal reality" indicates that the summary execution will not result in any reprisal in the United States but more likely in sporadic murders of Christians in muslim countries. The same would apply if Bin Laden were still alive . Given this situation and the overall arguments of this article, what imperative is there for the US to ever get to "designing alternatives that, in the future, an American president can actually use."
2. The White House as always, were economical with the truth in its description of the raid. We now know Bin laden could have been taken alive.
I am an "outsider" from Ireland but not a liberal European. I am grateful for the extent to which the US shielded us from evils such as communism et al in the second half of the 20th century.
I find that the "situation ethics" which characterise this article, inevitably, do not add up. The premise is that "No morally serious person can imagine that, given present political, social, and legal reality, someone like bin Laden can be tried in a criminal court in New York, or for that matter in the Hague." So the alternatives are (1) you summarily kill him, or (2) you let him stay at large, or , (3) you give him long term detention without trial.
Surely long term detention without trial is the most acceptable form of Neibuhr's contention that "we shouldn’t let them (ideals) paralyze us in our efforts to achieve an always relative, always temporary justice in practical affairs. The "present political, social, and legal reality" will not last forever, and in time could facilitate a trial.
Given the diluted nature of his influence before his death, the statement that "A captive bin Laden would have been a massive political liability, not only domestically, but also internationally—precisely because we have no workable legal mechanisms to bring him to justice, mechanisms that have a modicum of credibility and do not put whole populations at risk" - is exaggerated. In fact the present political, social, and legal reality" indicates that the summary execution will not result in any reprisal in the United States but more likely in sporadic murders of Christians in muslim countries. The same would apply if Bin Laden were still alive . Given this situation and the overall arguments of this article, what imperative is there for the US to ever get to "designing alternatives that, in the future, an American president can actually use."
5.16.2011 | 7:55am
heiressp says:
Facts: 1. Bin Laden chose to "live by the sword" and could have no complaints.
2. The White House as always, were economical with the truth in its description of the raid. We now know Bin laden could have been taken alive.
I am absolutely agree of this
2. The White House as always, were economical with the truth in its description of the raid. We now know Bin laden could have been taken alive.
I am absolutely agree of this
5.16.2011 | 8:08am
Alan says:
This is a pernicious column. The killing of Bin Laden, the general of an enemy force, is clearly within the parameters of jus in bello. However, the torture--not "enhanced interrogation"--of unarmed prisoners within our control who have no possibility of inflicting harm upon us is not. To equate the two shows a lack of moral seriousness not perfectionism. What the column fails to mention is the response to Mukasey's self-serving statement from Senator McCain and other reputable spokespeople. Trying to tie legitimate criticism of our actions at Guantanamo to folks like Chomsky is beneath contempt.
5.16.2011 | 8:30am
Mark says:
We forget what justice is. Justice is not proper procedure. The American jury system may be the ideal means to find justice, but it is not, in and of itself, justice. Justice is the guilty found guilty and the innocent found innocent. A tyrant condemning a guilty man is justice. A jury of his peers releasing him is not.
5.16.2011 | 8:32am
So, R.R. Reno argues for an ethical code where particular circumstances shape the applicable moral principals, such that these particular circumstance may well involve recognizing the need for compromises in what are generally regarded as universally applicable moral ideals. Morality, then, and applicable moral ideals in cases such as extra-legal government assassinations, are said by Reno to be dependent on circumstances.
Is this not the very definition of moral relativism? Are we thus, as Christians, to regard moral relativism as the only form of "moral seriousness?" That is certainly news to me - especially given the gusto with which outlets such as FIRST THINGS so regularly denounce moral relativism in the broader secular culture.
Is this not the very definition of moral relativism? Are we thus, as Christians, to regard moral relativism as the only form of "moral seriousness?" That is certainly news to me - especially given the gusto with which outlets such as FIRST THINGS so regularly denounce moral relativism in the broader secular culture.
5.16.2011 | 9:20am
Mick Lee says:
With all due respect for Mr. Bray, his statement “We now know Bin laden could have been taken alive" suffers from a certainty it does not deserve. I do not know if Mr. Bray has been a soldier in combat or a dangerous mission. In a chaotic instant, a soldier (in this case a Seal) has to decide to shoot or not shoot in micro-seconds. Hesitation can mean not only your own death but also the deaths of your buddies around you. If Bin Laden had been reaching for a teddy bear, given what experience has taught us, that toy could in fact be a bomb or a detonator to a bomb. Instead of second guessing his judgment, I am inclined to give the soldier (Seal) the benefit of the doubt.
A more general problem that I have with the operation's critics (Forgive me. I am more concerned with American critics than those in other lands) is that they insist on treating acts of war as essentially a police matter. Aside from being a mismatch of models, treating terrorist acts as "crimes" masks the actual nature of the threat we are under. Many in this country for either political or ideological reasons strain to deny that we are in war. What is notable for these particular concerns is the willingness to expose other innocent American civilians to needless injury and death for the sake of resisting military action. It has been over 35 years since the end of the Vietnam War; but an alarming number of my generation continue to view all foreign issues through that lens. Whatever you thought of that conflict, the fact is the whole world changed when the Berlin Wall came down and the communist USSR collapsed. What we face in the battle with extremist Muslims is a world in which such classic considerations as balance of power, mutual appeasement of interests, and the ability to cease hostilities through a treaty process simply do not apply or are not available. In other words, insisting on treating terrorist war as subject to policing and judicial channels assumes a level of civilization in the world that does not exist and will not exist (assuming it ever will) for generations.
A more general problem that I have with the operation's critics (Forgive me. I am more concerned with American critics than those in other lands) is that they insist on treating acts of war as essentially a police matter. Aside from being a mismatch of models, treating terrorist acts as "crimes" masks the actual nature of the threat we are under. Many in this country for either political or ideological reasons strain to deny that we are in war. What is notable for these particular concerns is the willingness to expose other innocent American civilians to needless injury and death for the sake of resisting military action. It has been over 35 years since the end of the Vietnam War; but an alarming number of my generation continue to view all foreign issues through that lens. Whatever you thought of that conflict, the fact is the whole world changed when the Berlin Wall came down and the communist USSR collapsed. What we face in the battle with extremist Muslims is a world in which such classic considerations as balance of power, mutual appeasement of interests, and the ability to cease hostilities through a treaty process simply do not apply or are not available. In other words, insisting on treating terrorist war as subject to policing and judicial channels assumes a level of civilization in the world that does not exist and will not exist (assuming it ever will) for generations.
5.16.2011 | 9:36am
patricksarsfield says:
On May 8, Tom Donilon, one of the Administration's security advisers, went onto Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show on Fox and was asked "Why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper, while enhanced interrogation – including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits – why is that over the line?”
Donilon's only justification was that we were at war with bin Laden. Even after Wallace pushed him, all Donilon could say was that we were at war with bin Laden.
Well, if being at war with someone gives one a right to kill even when the person is unarmed and not attacking, then our complaints about the German slaughter of American prisoners at Malmedy in the depths of the Battle of the Bulge were meritless. None of this is to say that I equate what was done to bin Laden with what was done to those prisoners. What I am saying is that the Administration has NOT justified the killing of an unarmed, not attacking bin Laden merely by saying that we were at war with him. And no one in the media is pushing for answers. Curious....
Donilon's only justification was that we were at war with bin Laden. Even after Wallace pushed him, all Donilon could say was that we were at war with bin Laden.
Well, if being at war with someone gives one a right to kill even when the person is unarmed and not attacking, then our complaints about the German slaughter of American prisoners at Malmedy in the depths of the Battle of the Bulge were meritless. None of this is to say that I equate what was done to bin Laden with what was done to those prisoners. What I am saying is that the Administration has NOT justified the killing of an unarmed, not attacking bin Laden merely by saying that we were at war with him. And no one in the media is pushing for answers. Curious....
5.16.2011 | 9:47am
Edward Dougherty says:
First of all, Mr. Reno and I would agree that there was nothing either illegal or immoral about the Seals raid on Mr. Bin Laden. He was a known criminal wanted for his crimes and we attempted to apprehend him and ended up killing him. I have no doubt our forced acted in the most prudent manner given the circumstances.
However, I respectfully disagree that we could not have tried Mr. Bin Laden in a criminal trial. Our criminal justice system tried the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing and it has tried other terror suspects. It is well equipped for this purpose. It would behoove our fight against terror to move our thinking about these suspects from the war realm to the criminal realm.
Finally, Mr. Reno suggests that John Yoo be contacted for his "workable alternatives" which, I would hope, Mr. Reno know includes the uses of torture on terror suspects. Not only does torture not work and not only did it not lead us to Mr. Bin Laden, it is against the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. I would respectfully suspect that by advocating this, Mr. Reno is disregarding Catholic Social Teaching and papal authority as much as an abortion rights advocate or a same sex marriage advocate.
I would respectfully submit that the disregard of 24 karat justice is feeding into the hysteria that has caused so many of the commetators at First Things to have been so wrong about so many aspects of our fight against terror (torture, the use of criminal trials and our invasion of Iraq).
However, I respectfully disagree that we could not have tried Mr. Bin Laden in a criminal trial. Our criminal justice system tried the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing and it has tried other terror suspects. It is well equipped for this purpose. It would behoove our fight against terror to move our thinking about these suspects from the war realm to the criminal realm.
Finally, Mr. Reno suggests that John Yoo be contacted for his "workable alternatives" which, I would hope, Mr. Reno know includes the uses of torture on terror suspects. Not only does torture not work and not only did it not lead us to Mr. Bin Laden, it is against the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. I would respectfully suspect that by advocating this, Mr. Reno is disregarding Catholic Social Teaching and papal authority as much as an abortion rights advocate or a same sex marriage advocate.
I would respectfully submit that the disregard of 24 karat justice is feeding into the hysteria that has caused so many of the commetators at First Things to have been so wrong about so many aspects of our fight against terror (torture, the use of criminal trials and our invasion of Iraq).
5.16.2011 | 10:04am
T. Roy says:
Actually, Corenlius Bray, I had precisely the opposite reaction to the quote: "A captive bin Laden would have been a massive political liability, not only domestically, but also internationally". If anything I suggest Mr. Reno, focused as he was on the larger picture of justice structures, has understated his case.
Remember the trial of Saddam Hussein, in which the former dictator challenged the very authority of those bringing him to trial. Similarly, an international trial for bin Laden, while giving us the reassuring feeling that 'everything was in order', would only have given him an international platform from which to proclaim his defiance and moral superiority. And I fear - surely not unreasonably - that the spectacle of their captive leader (who remained very much a leader) would have incited numerous terrorist acts to honor or free him. While you are quite probably correct that Christians in Muslim countries may suffer some retaliation, and I join you in deploring this, the toll would surely be higher were it otherwise.
Remember the trial of Saddam Hussein, in which the former dictator challenged the very authority of those bringing him to trial. Similarly, an international trial for bin Laden, while giving us the reassuring feeling that 'everything was in order', would only have given him an international platform from which to proclaim his defiance and moral superiority. And I fear - surely not unreasonably - that the spectacle of their captive leader (who remained very much a leader) would have incited numerous terrorist acts to honor or free him. While you are quite probably correct that Christians in Muslim countries may suffer some retaliation, and I join you in deploring this, the toll would surely be higher were it otherwise.
5.16.2011 | 10:11am
Chuck R says:
No no no...
The problem is that we were politically expedient up front, failing to recognize that the Taliban were state actors, and that our war against them was just that, a war. Meaning that prisoners taken were prisoners of war. Whereas Al Queda is a non-state actor, which should have been treated as a semi-criminal enterprise. Because we jumbled the two together, we ended up with a huge number of prisoners who ought to have been treated differently.
John Yoo is an idiot, who ought to have been disbarred for incompetence - except that by being politically radical, he's found friends. So just as the Left has its in-house fools, so does the Right. Consult John Yoo indeed! What is First Things coming to?
Chuck
The problem is that we were politically expedient up front, failing to recognize that the Taliban were state actors, and that our war against them was just that, a war. Meaning that prisoners taken were prisoners of war. Whereas Al Queda is a non-state actor, which should have been treated as a semi-criminal enterprise. Because we jumbled the two together, we ended up with a huge number of prisoners who ought to have been treated differently.
John Yoo is an idiot, who ought to have been disbarred for incompetence - except that by being politically radical, he's found friends. So just as the Left has its in-house fools, so does the Right. Consult John Yoo indeed! What is First Things coming to?
Chuck
5.16.2011 | 11:17am
Carson Chittom says:
Mr. Reno, you write: "No morally serious person can imagine that, given present political, social, and legal reality, someone like bin Laden can be tried in a criminal court in New York, or for that matter in the Hague. It’s irresponsible to suggest otherwise, even if one’s irresponsibility is expressed by way of lofty appeals to legality and justice."
I could not disagree more. Here is truth as I see it: when we treat bin Laden or his ilk as anything more than criminals, they win. When discovering and punishing them makes us willing to give up civil liberties, they win. When we believe we are "at war" with al-Qaeda or al-Shabab, or al-whatever, and act accordingly, they win. When Americans commit torture at official orders, even if such torture yields valuable intelligence, they win.
I could not disagree more. Here is truth as I see it: when we treat bin Laden or his ilk as anything more than criminals, they win. When discovering and punishing them makes us willing to give up civil liberties, they win. When we believe we are "at war" with al-Qaeda or al-Shabab, or al-whatever, and act accordingly, they win. When Americans commit torture at official orders, even if such torture yields valuable intelligence, they win.
5.16.2011 | 11:24am
Mike Meredith says:
Mr. Reno,
Your article is just a rationalization for murder. All you have done is made an excuse for the US government to become, in fact, the very thing that we accuse OBL of being.
Your article is just a rationalization for murder. All you have done is made an excuse for the US government to become, in fact, the very thing that we accuse OBL of being.
5.16.2011 | 12:28pm
patricksarsfield says:
A quick search of the Internet for the "morality of Malmedy" revealed that at least one "Catholic commentator" has noted the problem with the Obama Administration's justification for shooting an unarmed UBL. Mark Shea writing in Crisis Magazine on May 11 ( http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/our-ruling-classes-and-reality-management ) noted:
"And that is something we hoi polloi simply have no information about, except through the shifting accounts of the White House. If it were to turn out, upon further investigation, that Obama ordered his troops to shoot bin Laden even though he was trying to surrender, then the proper term for that would be “murder” just as it was when our surrendering troops were gunned down at Malmedy...."
Mr. Shea is absolutely right. Killing of an unarmed enemy who is not attacking cannot be justified on the ground that the killer and the killed are at war. So the question becomes: was UBL menacing the US soldier in any way? Malmedy was an immoral and uncivilized act that we should never forget and never replicate. Of course, that is not to say that the soldier who pulled the trigger should be held to an unrealistic standard.
"And that is something we hoi polloi simply have no information about, except through the shifting accounts of the White House. If it were to turn out, upon further investigation, that Obama ordered his troops to shoot bin Laden even though he was trying to surrender, then the proper term for that would be “murder” just as it was when our surrendering troops were gunned down at Malmedy...."
Mr. Shea is absolutely right. Killing of an unarmed enemy who is not attacking cannot be justified on the ground that the killer and the killed are at war. So the question becomes: was UBL menacing the US soldier in any way? Malmedy was an immoral and uncivilized act that we should never forget and never replicate. Of course, that is not to say that the soldier who pulled the trigger should be held to an unrealistic standard.
5.16.2011 | 12:35pm
Brian English says:
"We now know Bin laden could have been taken alive."
Upon what do you base that conclusion?
"Surely long term detention without trial is the most acceptable form of Neibuhr's contention that "we shouldn’t let them (ideals) paralyze us in our efforts to achieve an always relative, always temporary justice in practical affairs. "
And when al Qaeda takes over a school and demands bin Laden's release, or else they will kill all the children, what do you do then?
Upon what do you base that conclusion?
"Surely long term detention without trial is the most acceptable form of Neibuhr's contention that "we shouldn’t let them (ideals) paralyze us in our efforts to achieve an always relative, always temporary justice in practical affairs. "
And when al Qaeda takes over a school and demands bin Laden's release, or else they will kill all the children, what do you do then?
5.16.2011 | 12:41pm
Brian English says:
"Well, if being at war with someone gives one a right to kill even when the person is unarmed and not attacking, then our complaints about the German slaughter of American prisoners at Malmedy in the depths of the Battle of the Bulge were meritless."
The troops at Malmedy were already prisoners when the SS marched them into a field and opened up with machine guns. Some prisoners ran into a cafe, which the SS set on fire, and the prisoners were shot as they fled the flames. Others played dead, but were shot on the ground.
The operation that killed bin Laden was more like a raid on an enemy headquarters or camp. You don't have to wait for the enemy to pick up a gun before you shoot them.
The troops at Malmedy were already prisoners when the SS marched them into a field and opened up with machine guns. Some prisoners ran into a cafe, which the SS set on fire, and the prisoners were shot as they fled the flames. Others played dead, but were shot on the ground.
The operation that killed bin Laden was more like a raid on an enemy headquarters or camp. You don't have to wait for the enemy to pick up a gun before you shoot them.
5.16.2011 | 12:44pm
Charlie Collier says:
First Things has clearly been at sea for a while. I had hoped that Captain Reno might bring the magazine back into a safe harbor. Instead, this Morally Serious Neo-Niebuhrian Pilot is evidently gunning for the biggest icebergs on the open waters: John Yoo, the author of the torture memos and the guy who saw no legal recourse for opposing a president's right to crush the testicles of enemy children.
5.16.2011 | 12:44pm
Brian English says:
"Our criminal justice system tried the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing and it has tried other terror suspects. It is well equipped for this purpose. "
Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor in that case, disagrees with you.
Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor in that case, disagrees with you.
5.16.2011 | 12:48pm
Brian English says:
"All you have done is made an excuse for the US government to become, in fact, the very thing that we accuse OBL of being."
So the Seals shooting OBL is the same thing as civilians being slaughtered on 9-11?
So the Seals shooting OBL is the same thing as civilians being slaughtered on 9-11?
5.16.2011 | 12:48pm
David Nickol says:
We do not know the exact details of what happened in the room when bin Laden was shot. But think of this. An ordinary police officer is holding at gunpoint one of the 10 most wanted fugitives. He says, "Put your hands up, or I'll shoot." Suppose instead of putting up his hands, the fugitive starts to run the other way. Or suppose he slips his hand into his pocket. Or maybe he just stands there and doesn't put his hands up. What is the police officer to do?
I don't know how it is in outer cities, but I live in New York, and I can't remember a case where a police officer has ever been convicted for shooting an unarmed man. Read the case of Sean Bell, for example. Or Amadou Diallo. Rightly or wrongly, we bend over backwards to give police officers the benefit of the doubt when they shoot and kill innocent civilians. But in this case, highly trained Navy Seals shot one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, and some are quick to call it murder. I think that is shameful.
I don't know how it is in outer cities, but I live in New York, and I can't remember a case where a police officer has ever been convicted for shooting an unarmed man. Read the case of Sean Bell, for example. Or Amadou Diallo. Rightly or wrongly, we bend over backwards to give police officers the benefit of the doubt when they shoot and kill innocent civilians. But in this case, highly trained Navy Seals shot one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, and some are quick to call it murder. I think that is shameful.
5.16.2011 | 1:02pm
jason taylor says:
"The problem is that we were politically expedient up front, failing to recognize that the Taliban were state actors, and that our war against them was just that, a war. Meaning that prisoners taken were prisoners of war. Whereas Al Queda is a non-state actor, which should have been treated as a semi-criminal enterprise. Because we jumbled the two together, we ended up with a huge number of prisoners who ought to have been treated differently. "
If the Taliban who are sheltering Al Queda are "state actors" then Al Queda are state actors by extention. Just as Jacobite "Wild Geese" in French service were.
In any case the line between war and crime is an arbitrary legal fiction except in places like Central Europe that can take civilization for granted in peacetime. It is "jumbled together" because it is jumbled together in real life and always has been. The Northwest Frontier is not France and never was. In that area each tribe is a state unto itself by virtue of their being nothing else that can be recognized as a state. A partisan band in such an area is in the same situation In any case it seems peculiar to be so scrupulous as to give Al Queda the best of both worlds. Criminals powerful enough to wage war on a small scale are simply different from ordinary criminals.
As for the Constitutional implications, the original writers of the Constitution did not intend to arbitrarily take away the states ability to deal with such eventualities. This is shown by the fact that "non-state" warfare did take place then just as much as today and no one considered that it was a legal difficulty, and the Founding Fathers typically went far beyond what the "Infamous Bush" would have done, in such cases. No one thought it was necessary to read Miranda rights during the Whisky Rebellion or the Battle of Fallen Timbers.
Those who think Al Queda is a new situation are unread. Al Queda is an ancient phenomen, far more ancient then armies and formal warfare and states. Al Queda is an example of brigandage, tribal warfare, and vendetta all of which exist in places where there is no law and no state beyond the most powerful warlord. States as we know them came into being by subjugating Al Queda like behavior and the legal distinction being made here, is simply one that was not thought of until recently. The normal pattern was to give rebels and organized brigands and the like the worst of both worlds, not the best and that is enshrined in precedent and tradition so old as to make this a revolutionary doctrine, not a legal one.
If the Taliban who are sheltering Al Queda are "state actors" then Al Queda are state actors by extention. Just as Jacobite "Wild Geese" in French service were.
In any case the line between war and crime is an arbitrary legal fiction except in places like Central Europe that can take civilization for granted in peacetime. It is "jumbled together" because it is jumbled together in real life and always has been. The Northwest Frontier is not France and never was. In that area each tribe is a state unto itself by virtue of their being nothing else that can be recognized as a state. A partisan band in such an area is in the same situation In any case it seems peculiar to be so scrupulous as to give Al Queda the best of both worlds. Criminals powerful enough to wage war on a small scale are simply different from ordinary criminals.
As for the Constitutional implications, the original writers of the Constitution did not intend to arbitrarily take away the states ability to deal with such eventualities. This is shown by the fact that "non-state" warfare did take place then just as much as today and no one considered that it was a legal difficulty, and the Founding Fathers typically went far beyond what the "Infamous Bush" would have done, in such cases. No one thought it was necessary to read Miranda rights during the Whisky Rebellion or the Battle of Fallen Timbers.
Those who think Al Queda is a new situation are unread. Al Queda is an ancient phenomen, far more ancient then armies and formal warfare and states. Al Queda is an example of brigandage, tribal warfare, and vendetta all of which exist in places where there is no law and no state beyond the most powerful warlord. States as we know them came into being by subjugating Al Queda like behavior and the legal distinction being made here, is simply one that was not thought of until recently. The normal pattern was to give rebels and organized brigands and the like the worst of both worlds, not the best and that is enshrined in precedent and tradition so old as to make this a revolutionary doctrine, not a legal one.
5.16.2011 | 2:58pm
Jason Taylor writes:
"In any case the line between war and crime is an arbitrary legal fiction except in places like Central Europe that can take civilization for granted in peacetime."
I have a question for you, Mr. Taylor: If you are correct, then what exactly morally distinguishes American foreign policy from Nazi foreign policy, or from Soviet foreign policy? How can the U.S. unhypocritically condemn the Nazis for their crimes if the non-crimes of the U.S. are, in fact, non-crimes only in a fictional sense?
After all, the Nazis advanced precisely the same kinds of fictions in defense of their crimes; Nazi propaganda is in fact a direct lineage of techniques of mass-persuasion first perfected by the U.S. in World War I.
I also hope Dr. Reno will respond publicly to my charge above that his position is tantamount to moral relativism. If I have misunderstood him, then I am eager to have that clarified.
"In any case the line between war and crime is an arbitrary legal fiction except in places like Central Europe that can take civilization for granted in peacetime."
I have a question for you, Mr. Taylor: If you are correct, then what exactly morally distinguishes American foreign policy from Nazi foreign policy, or from Soviet foreign policy? How can the U.S. unhypocritically condemn the Nazis for their crimes if the non-crimes of the U.S. are, in fact, non-crimes only in a fictional sense?
After all, the Nazis advanced precisely the same kinds of fictions in defense of their crimes; Nazi propaganda is in fact a direct lineage of techniques of mass-persuasion first perfected by the U.S. in World War I.
I also hope Dr. Reno will respond publicly to my charge above that his position is tantamount to moral relativism. If I have misunderstood him, then I am eager to have that clarified.
5.16.2011 | 3:12pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian English and I had the following exchange:
patricksarsfield:"Well, if being at war with someone gives one a right to kill even when the person is unarmed and not attacking, then our complaints about the German slaughter of American prisoners at Malmedy in the depths of the Battle of the Bulge were meritless."
Brian English: "The troops at Malmedy were already prisoners when the SS marched them into a field and opened up with machine guns. Some prisoners ran into a cafe, which the SS set on fire, and the prisoners were shot as they fled the flames. Others played dead, but were shot on the ground. The operation that killed bin Laden was more like a raid on an enemy headquarters or camp. You don't have to wait for the enemy to pick up a gun before you shoot them. "
Brian:
Were you at either event? If not, what is the source for your conclusion that the shooting of UBL was justified under the rules of law? It does appear that the Americans at Malmedy were prisoners at the time they were killed. What was UBL's status?
What leads me to question the events in Abbotabad is the multiple inconsistencies in the stories told by Admin spokespersons and the inability of the Administration to offer any greater justification than that we were at war with UBL (see my posts above). The fact that the Third Reich was at war with the US (a war, btw, that we declared, not the Germans) would not justify the slaughter of American POWs as happened at Malmedy. What was UBL's status when killed?
As I indicated above, I am not equating Malmedy and Abbotabad, but there have been very few uncontradicted details released to support the lawfulness of the kill. As you indicate, "you don't have to wait for the enemy to pick up a gun before you shoot them" but when an enemy is unarmed and not attacking and not part of a functioning force in the field that one is "closing with," it is not lawful to kill him when he can be said to have "fallen into the power of" the other combatant.
So the question becomes: what was UBL doing and what power did we have over him without killing him? I don't know the answers, but someone does and we have not been given them.
patricksarsfield:"Well, if being at war with someone gives one a right to kill even when the person is unarmed and not attacking, then our complaints about the German slaughter of American prisoners at Malmedy in the depths of the Battle of the Bulge were meritless."
Brian English: "The troops at Malmedy were already prisoners when the SS marched them into a field and opened up with machine guns. Some prisoners ran into a cafe, which the SS set on fire, and the prisoners were shot as they fled the flames. Others played dead, but were shot on the ground. The operation that killed bin Laden was more like a raid on an enemy headquarters or camp. You don't have to wait for the enemy to pick up a gun before you shoot them. "
Brian:
Were you at either event? If not, what is the source for your conclusion that the shooting of UBL was justified under the rules of law? It does appear that the Americans at Malmedy were prisoners at the time they were killed. What was UBL's status?
What leads me to question the events in Abbotabad is the multiple inconsistencies in the stories told by Admin spokespersons and the inability of the Administration to offer any greater justification than that we were at war with UBL (see my posts above). The fact that the Third Reich was at war with the US (a war, btw, that we declared, not the Germans) would not justify the slaughter of American POWs as happened at Malmedy. What was UBL's status when killed?
As I indicated above, I am not equating Malmedy and Abbotabad, but there have been very few uncontradicted details released to support the lawfulness of the kill. As you indicate, "you don't have to wait for the enemy to pick up a gun before you shoot them" but when an enemy is unarmed and not attacking and not part of a functioning force in the field that one is "closing with," it is not lawful to kill him when he can be said to have "fallen into the power of" the other combatant.
So the question becomes: what was UBL doing and what power did we have over him without killing him? I don't know the answers, but someone does and we have not been given them.
5.16.2011 | 5:38pm
Brian English says:
"Were you at either event? If not, what is the source for your conclusion that the shooting of UBL was justified under the rules of law? It does appear that the Americans at Malmedy were prisoners at the time they were killed. What was UBL's status?"
(1) With regard to Malmedy, there are these wonderful things called books, where we can find out about events that we were not present at.
(2) Since you are the one accusing the Seals of a war crime, don't you think the burden of proof should be on you to prove bin Laden was in custody?
(1) With regard to Malmedy, there are these wonderful things called books, where we can find out about events that we were not present at.
(2) Since you are the one accusing the Seals of a war crime, don't you think the burden of proof should be on you to prove bin Laden was in custody?
5.16.2011 | 6:01pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
In American law, a police officer seeking to arrest a person who is reasonably suspected of committing murder is justified in killing the person if he attempts to escape, or attempts to fight back, or simply refuses to submit to arrest (such as complying with an order to lie face down on the floor and place his hands behind his head where he cannot threaten the arresting officer). Based on what little we know about the attsack on bin Laden's hideout, we cannot eliminate the possibility that one of these circumstances occurred, which fully justified use of deadly force even in the most civilized of US police actions.
The obligation to take the enemy prisoner in war, rather than kill him, is contingent on whether the soldiers making the attack are in a position of relative safety and control, where taking the enemy prisoner would not threaten their own lives. When one is operating in non-friendly territory, where one does not have general control, such as this quick raid into a Muslim nation where the enemy they are attacking has many confederates and supporters, the duty to take bin Laden prisoner under the normal laws of war is far from compelling.
Patricksarsfield should be reminded that Hitler declared war on the US as an act of solidarity with his Axis ally, the Emprire of Japan, after the US Congress delcared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
In the laws of war, the primary humanitarian imperative is NOT to save the life of the enemy, but to save the lives of innocent civilians, insofar as it is possible. Incendiary bombing of Japan's cities (including my native Nagoya, home of the Mistubishi Zero plane factories) was considered legitimate under those rules, though it certainly killed many noncombatant women and children. On the other hand, the fact that my mother and her high school classmates were drafted into making Zeros made them legitimate targets under the normal rules of war. It is one of the sins that the Japanese military dictatorship was culpable for. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in those circumstances, the death of a man who plotted the murder of thousands on multiple occasions, and encouraged others to do so with leadership and financial means, does not personally trouble me as unjust in any sense. His death will prevent him from plotting and guiding further mass murders. And despite the rhetoric of the wounded al Qaeda organization, I suspect that there are a substantial number of people at lower levels of association with the jihadists who are going to be much less eager to volunteer to make themselves a target of US armed retaliation. The number of attacks due to bin Laden's death is likely, it seems to me, to be far less than the number of deaths he would have supported had he lived.
Indeed, after two weeks, the actual level of street violence in response to bin Laden's death does not seem to have risen to the levels of the riots that occurred in response to a few Danish cartoons that made fun of Muslims and Muhammad. People can feel awfully self-righteous about acting violently against people who are unlikely to hit back.
A more interesting case is the whole involvement of the US in the bogus semi-war against Muammar Qaddaffi. He has not made war on the US per se (at least for a number of years). President Obama apparently does not feel strongly that he has a case for sending Seal Team Six against someone who may be a bit easier to locate than bin Laden was.
The obligation to take the enemy prisoner in war, rather than kill him, is contingent on whether the soldiers making the attack are in a position of relative safety and control, where taking the enemy prisoner would not threaten their own lives. When one is operating in non-friendly territory, where one does not have general control, such as this quick raid into a Muslim nation where the enemy they are attacking has many confederates and supporters, the duty to take bin Laden prisoner under the normal laws of war is far from compelling.
Patricksarsfield should be reminded that Hitler declared war on the US as an act of solidarity with his Axis ally, the Emprire of Japan, after the US Congress delcared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
In the laws of war, the primary humanitarian imperative is NOT to save the life of the enemy, but to save the lives of innocent civilians, insofar as it is possible. Incendiary bombing of Japan's cities (including my native Nagoya, home of the Mistubishi Zero plane factories) was considered legitimate under those rules, though it certainly killed many noncombatant women and children. On the other hand, the fact that my mother and her high school classmates were drafted into making Zeros made them legitimate targets under the normal rules of war. It is one of the sins that the Japanese military dictatorship was culpable for. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in those circumstances, the death of a man who plotted the murder of thousands on multiple occasions, and encouraged others to do so with leadership and financial means, does not personally trouble me as unjust in any sense. His death will prevent him from plotting and guiding further mass murders. And despite the rhetoric of the wounded al Qaeda organization, I suspect that there are a substantial number of people at lower levels of association with the jihadists who are going to be much less eager to volunteer to make themselves a target of US armed retaliation. The number of attacks due to bin Laden's death is likely, it seems to me, to be far less than the number of deaths he would have supported had he lived.
Indeed, after two weeks, the actual level of street violence in response to bin Laden's death does not seem to have risen to the levels of the riots that occurred in response to a few Danish cartoons that made fun of Muslims and Muhammad. People can feel awfully self-righteous about acting violently against people who are unlikely to hit back.
A more interesting case is the whole involvement of the US in the bogus semi-war against Muammar Qaddaffi. He has not made war on the US per se (at least for a number of years). President Obama apparently does not feel strongly that he has a case for sending Seal Team Six against someone who may be a bit easier to locate than bin Laden was.
5.16.2011 | 8:31pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian English asks patricksarsfield:
"
(2) Since you are the one accusing the Seals of a war crime, don't you think the burden of proof should be on you to prove bin Laden was in custody?"
Patricksarsfield responds: What an undisciplined response! What a red herring. When did I accuse anyone of a war crime? Answer: never. The question is whether there is any basis to question the stories that the Administration has put out about the killing. Clearly, there are reasons to question those stories because they have been inconsistent with one another.
If Mr. English, who has thrown around a claim about a non-existent "burden of proof," really wants to address this from an evidentiary pov, let's look at the evidentiary principle that inconsistent stories are admissible against an adverse party (here the Administration). I can meet what is more properly called my "burden of persuasion" (that is, the burden of going forward when challenged, in counterpoise to the ultimate burden of proof ), by showing that there were such inconsistencies and that the killing of an unarmed man not attacking can not be justified solely on the basis that we were at war with that person.
Basis for claiming inconsistencies? There have been a number of articles pointing out the changing Admin story. Here is an excerpt from one story that appeared on Newsmax (fair use):
""The Obama administration’s handling of the aftermath of the operation to kill Osama bin Laden has devolved into “amateur hour,” Heritage Foundation expert Dr. James Jay Carafano tells Newsmax. Although Carafano praised the Seal Team Six operation that initially took out bin Laden, the administration’s conflicting accounts of the operation have been counterproductive, he said. Carafano told Newsmax Wednesday that it’s been “total amateur hour” since President Barack Obama’s announced bin Laden’s death. Initially, said Carafano, White House Homeland Security adviser John Brennan appeared to be clever by portraying bin Laden as hiding behind one of his wives and using her as a human shield.
“It was a great line, but if it’s not true, the damage to your credibility makes you look amateurish,” he said. “Not to have your facts straight is just inexcusable.”
The administration has modified its account of the kill mission several times. It now appears that no firefight occurred, and that the al-Qaida mastermind was not armed when the Seals took him down. A woman who rushed toward the Seals was shot in the leg, but not killed. And there is no indication that bin Laden used her for cover.
“I just thought it was stunning and unbelievable, that they would give out details and then say they may or may not have been accurate -- unbelievable amateur hour,” Carafano told Newsmax. “Legitimacy is everything in a war of ideas,” he added.""
So, if the Admin is telling inconsistent stories and has not proferred an explanation for why UBL was shot now that it is clear that he was unarmed and was not attacking anyone, I have met my burden of going forward to this point. Now, there really needs to be a better explanation for why he was killed when he at least arguably had already "fallen into the power of the" US (that is a term of art from the Third Geneva Convention Treaty on the treatment of pows).
"
(2) Since you are the one accusing the Seals of a war crime, don't you think the burden of proof should be on you to prove bin Laden was in custody?"
Patricksarsfield responds: What an undisciplined response! What a red herring. When did I accuse anyone of a war crime? Answer: never. The question is whether there is any basis to question the stories that the Administration has put out about the killing. Clearly, there are reasons to question those stories because they have been inconsistent with one another.
If Mr. English, who has thrown around a claim about a non-existent "burden of proof," really wants to address this from an evidentiary pov, let's look at the evidentiary principle that inconsistent stories are admissible against an adverse party (here the Administration). I can meet what is more properly called my "burden of persuasion" (that is, the burden of going forward when challenged, in counterpoise to the ultimate burden of proof ), by showing that there were such inconsistencies and that the killing of an unarmed man not attacking can not be justified solely on the basis that we were at war with that person.
Basis for claiming inconsistencies? There have been a number of articles pointing out the changing Admin story. Here is an excerpt from one story that appeared on Newsmax (fair use):
""The Obama administration’s handling of the aftermath of the operation to kill Osama bin Laden has devolved into “amateur hour,” Heritage Foundation expert Dr. James Jay Carafano tells Newsmax. Although Carafano praised the Seal Team Six operation that initially took out bin Laden, the administration’s conflicting accounts of the operation have been counterproductive, he said. Carafano told Newsmax Wednesday that it’s been “total amateur hour” since President Barack Obama’s announced bin Laden’s death. Initially, said Carafano, White House Homeland Security adviser John Brennan appeared to be clever by portraying bin Laden as hiding behind one of his wives and using her as a human shield.
“It was a great line, but if it’s not true, the damage to your credibility makes you look amateurish,” he said. “Not to have your facts straight is just inexcusable.”
The administration has modified its account of the kill mission several times. It now appears that no firefight occurred, and that the al-Qaida mastermind was not armed when the Seals took him down. A woman who rushed toward the Seals was shot in the leg, but not killed. And there is no indication that bin Laden used her for cover.
“I just thought it was stunning and unbelievable, that they would give out details and then say they may or may not have been accurate -- unbelievable amateur hour,” Carafano told Newsmax. “Legitimacy is everything in a war of ideas,” he added.""
So, if the Admin is telling inconsistent stories and has not proferred an explanation for why UBL was shot now that it is clear that he was unarmed and was not attacking anyone, I have met my burden of going forward to this point. Now, there really needs to be a better explanation for why he was killed when he at least arguably had already "fallen into the power of the" US (that is a term of art from the Third Geneva Convention Treaty on the treatment of pows).
5.16.2011 | 9:28pm
patricksarsfield says:
RT Swenson writes:
"Patricksarsfield should be reminded that Hitler declared war on the US as an act of solidarity with his Axis ally, the Emprire of Japan, after the US Congress delcared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Mr. Swenson was right and my recollection was wrong. [One more proof "gilding the lily" on extraneous points often backfires, btw].
"Patricksarsfield should be reminded that Hitler declared war on the US as an act of solidarity with his Axis ally, the Emprire of Japan, after the US Congress delcared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Mr. Swenson was right and my recollection was wrong. [One more proof "gilding the lily" on extraneous points often backfires, btw].
5.16.2011 | 10:19pm
In Joculus Veritas says:
It's pleasing to see how rapidly Obama has learned since rising from obscure, care-free, left-wing libertinism to a position of responsibility. Bin Laden was not *more* than a criminal, but he was different from a mere criminal: he was a pirate, i.e., a stateless criminal. When caught pirates should be tried by the military officers at the scene and if found guilty they should swing. A harsh responsibility, to be sure, but necessary in a harsh world. (How can we justify spending millions to coddle savage enemies of civilization when so many innocents are in need?) Our courts and prisons (with their often extraordinarily generous accouterments) should be for citizens of a recognized nation. (Somali pirates jailed in America probably bless Allah day and night for their good fortune.) Let Osama's ilk show their credentials if they want to be caught and handed over to "the authorities." (Real justice would call for Osama to "live out [his] life in a pain amplifier.") Otherwise, let them weep, and lose their sleep, 'cause somewhere above, bearing them no love, wired for war, is Pre-da-tor.
5.16.2011 | 10:22pm
Don Roberto says:
dear patrickarsefield, Germany declared war on the USA after we declared it on Japan. (We should have declared war on both long before we did.)
5.17.2011 | 12:17am
John Anderson says:
War crimes? The funniest thing I heard was that he wasn't given his right to due process. Remember, the bell curve flattens out both directions and I'm amazed at how many people think they are on one end of the tail and have no idea of reality.
5.17.2011 | 12:48am
Sergio Méndez says:
Raymond:
What you say is reasonable (mostly). But there are two problems in this discussion:
1. We don´t know under what circumstances Bin Laden was killed. We don´t know if he was shot in the heat of combat, or if the SEAL team that killed him had no other alternative but to shot him because there was no guarantee for their safety, or if Bin Laden shot in cold blood after being capture or being in no position to offer resistance or a significant treat to American effectives.
2. That some people, starting with the author of this article, seem to be arguing (openly or not) that it was not possible to bring Bin Laden (and not only Bin Laden, but prisoners in Guantanamo) to justice and give them a due process. That is, to say it clearly, pure moral relativism at its worst, which is shocking specially coming from people like those who write in this magazine, that condemn that ethical position with every breath they take. Well, at least it is supposed to be shocking for many conservatives. Personally, I find that hypocrisy is the creed of the right since...always.
What you say is reasonable (mostly). But there are two problems in this discussion:
1. We don´t know under what circumstances Bin Laden was killed. We don´t know if he was shot in the heat of combat, or if the SEAL team that killed him had no other alternative but to shot him because there was no guarantee for their safety, or if Bin Laden shot in cold blood after being capture or being in no position to offer resistance or a significant treat to American effectives.
2. That some people, starting with the author of this article, seem to be arguing (openly or not) that it was not possible to bring Bin Laden (and not only Bin Laden, but prisoners in Guantanamo) to justice and give them a due process. That is, to say it clearly, pure moral relativism at its worst, which is shocking specially coming from people like those who write in this magazine, that condemn that ethical position with every breath they take. Well, at least it is supposed to be shocking for many conservatives. Personally, I find that hypocrisy is the creed of the right since...always.
5.17.2011 | 1:46am
John Stockings says:
I generally agree with Reno's article (I'm a bit concerned about Mr. Yoo), but I think Reno does need to address the "moral relativism" accusations above by the Church of the East member (what church is this?), who goes so far as to compare U.S. foreign policy with the Nazis during WWII and also former Soviet foreign policy. If necessary, I will anticipate Reno's reply and simpy state that no reasonable person would make such a comparison, and that only someone who misunderstands American democracy, or perhaps envies it from afar would hold such an opinion.
The number of comments above and the clashing opinions illustrate how central the Bin Laden killing by U.S. forces is to Christain morality.
As America cannot police the world, we also cannot adjudicate the world by extending our system of jurisprudence to our avowed enemies. The President has the right, the power, and a sworn obligation to protect U.S. citizens against foreign enemies.
Bin Laden was likely under the protection of Pakistan's government or its intelligence service for years. The Navy Seals had to move in furtively invading a dysfunctional country and capture or kill an enemy of the U.S who had ordered the killing of American and was continuing to pursue such aims. The President clearly authorized the killing of Bin Laden. This was not a domestic police mission. It was a successfully executed military mission that avenged an attack on America in New York and the loss of thousands of American lives. This mission and Bin Laden's killing complied with U.S. law. As a military mission, it would be supported by any sensible interpretation of international law.
The Christian moral absolute is Thou Shalt Not Kill. Jesus never stated that capital punishment is sinful or unjust. His statements and parables in fact indicate that he realized it was necessay in some instances. He also never advocated state or individual pacifisim. This killing was not based on moral relativism by any stretch of the imagination. It was just, it was pragmatic, it was eminently right.
Bin Laden was a shameless killer, a montrous and deranged person, and an enemy not only of America but all democracies in the world. He deserved to die. A quick death for him was a merciful death! Justice was done, and his death should deter at the very least some impressionable young potential al Qaeda recruits.
Mr. Swenson above puts it very well:
" Compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in those circumstances, the death of a man who plotted the murder of thousands on multiple occasions, and encouraged others to do so with leadership and financial means, does not personally trouble me as unjust in any sense. His death will prevent him from plotting and guiding further mass murders. And despite the rhetoric of the wounded al Qaeda organization, I suspect that there are a substantial number of people at lower levels of association with the jihadists who are going to be much less eager to volunteer to make themselves a target of US armed retaliation. The number of attacks due to bin Laden's death is likely, it seems to me, to be far less than the number of deaths he would have supported had he lived."
Lastly, I must correct a few commentators above who misunderstand civilization almost completely: it is the failure to stop timely, and kill if necessary, the Hitlers and Stalins and Bin Ladens that appear periodically on the world's stage that threatens civilization to its very core.
The number of comments above and the clashing opinions illustrate how central the Bin Laden killing by U.S. forces is to Christain morality.
As America cannot police the world, we also cannot adjudicate the world by extending our system of jurisprudence to our avowed enemies. The President has the right, the power, and a sworn obligation to protect U.S. citizens against foreign enemies.
Bin Laden was likely under the protection of Pakistan's government or its intelligence service for years. The Navy Seals had to move in furtively invading a dysfunctional country and capture or kill an enemy of the U.S who had ordered the killing of American and was continuing to pursue such aims. The President clearly authorized the killing of Bin Laden. This was not a domestic police mission. It was a successfully executed military mission that avenged an attack on America in New York and the loss of thousands of American lives. This mission and Bin Laden's killing complied with U.S. law. As a military mission, it would be supported by any sensible interpretation of international law.
The Christian moral absolute is Thou Shalt Not Kill. Jesus never stated that capital punishment is sinful or unjust. His statements and parables in fact indicate that he realized it was necessay in some instances. He also never advocated state or individual pacifisim. This killing was not based on moral relativism by any stretch of the imagination. It was just, it was pragmatic, it was eminently right.
Bin Laden was a shameless killer, a montrous and deranged person, and an enemy not only of America but all democracies in the world. He deserved to die. A quick death for him was a merciful death! Justice was done, and his death should deter at the very least some impressionable young potential al Qaeda recruits.
Mr. Swenson above puts it very well:
" Compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in those circumstances, the death of a man who plotted the murder of thousands on multiple occasions, and encouraged others to do so with leadership and financial means, does not personally trouble me as unjust in any sense. His death will prevent him from plotting and guiding further mass murders. And despite the rhetoric of the wounded al Qaeda organization, I suspect that there are a substantial number of people at lower levels of association with the jihadists who are going to be much less eager to volunteer to make themselves a target of US armed retaliation. The number of attacks due to bin Laden's death is likely, it seems to me, to be far less than the number of deaths he would have supported had he lived."
Lastly, I must correct a few commentators above who misunderstand civilization almost completely: it is the failure to stop timely, and kill if necessary, the Hitlers and Stalins and Bin Ladens that appear periodically on the world's stage that threatens civilization to its very core.
5.17.2011 | 5:06am
Michael PS says:
Using the Malmedy episode as an analogy overlooks the cardinal difference between lawful combatants and franc-tireurs.
All publicists agree that franc-tireurs may be shot on capture, or after interrogation. Field Marshall Lord Robert’s proclamation to that effect, during the Second Boer War, could confer no rights on British forces that they did not already possess under customary international law.
Bin Laden was clearly not a member of a regular armed force; nor did he qualify for the limited protection conferred on guerrillas, for these only apply to those who (1) carry arms openly (2) wear a fixed and distinctive sign, visible at a distance (3) obey commanders who are responsible for their subordinates and who (4) observe the laws and usages of war. Al Quaeda meets none of these requirements.
All publicists agree that franc-tireurs may be shot on capture, or after interrogation. Field Marshall Lord Robert’s proclamation to that effect, during the Second Boer War, could confer no rights on British forces that they did not already possess under customary international law.
Bin Laden was clearly not a member of a regular armed force; nor did he qualify for the limited protection conferred on guerrillas, for these only apply to those who (1) carry arms openly (2) wear a fixed and distinctive sign, visible at a distance (3) obey commanders who are responsible for their subordinates and who (4) observe the laws and usages of war. Al Quaeda meets none of these requirements.
5.17.2011 | 11:20am
Brian English says:
"Patricksarsfield responds: What an undisciplined response! What a red herring. When did I accuse anyone of a war crime? Answer: never."
Nonsense. You are claiming that the Administration's contradictory statements on the raid raise a suspicion that the killing was unjustified, and that the Adminstration is trying to cover things up. If the Adminstration is engaged in a cover-up, then the people they are trying to protect are the Seals. So explain to me again how you are not accusing them of a war crime?
I don't care if the Obama Adminstration presented a 100 different versions of what happened. All that proves is, as Prof. Reynolds notes at Instapundit, that while the military handled the operation itself, the same band of incompetents at the White House handled the post-operation.
Nonsense. You are claiming that the Administration's contradictory statements on the raid raise a suspicion that the killing was unjustified, and that the Adminstration is trying to cover things up. If the Adminstration is engaged in a cover-up, then the people they are trying to protect are the Seals. So explain to me again how you are not accusing them of a war crime?
I don't care if the Obama Adminstration presented a 100 different versions of what happened. All that proves is, as Prof. Reynolds notes at Instapundit, that while the military handled the operation itself, the same band of incompetents at the White House handled the post-operation.
5.17.2011 | 2:52pm
Brian English says:
Jed Rubenfeld, a Professor at Yale Law School, has an excellent analysis of this issue in yesterday's LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rubenfeld-bin-laden-20110516,0,6451265.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rubenfeld-bin-laden-20110516,0,6451265.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29
5.17.2011 | 7:24pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian English responds to patricksarsfield:
"Nonsense. You are claiming that the Administration's contradictory statements on the raid raise a suspicion that the killing was unjustified, and that the Adminstration is trying to cover things up. If the Adminstration is engaged in a cover-up, then the people they are trying to protect are the Seals. So explain to me again how you are not accusing them of a war crime? I don't care if the Obama Adminstration presented a 100 different versions of what happened. All that proves is, as Prof. Reynolds notes at Instapundit, that while the military handled the operation itself, the same band of incompetents at the White House handled the post-operation."
patricks sarsfield replies: Mr. English MAY be right that the inconsistencies have nothing to do with what actually happened in Abbotabad. OR, he may be wrong. We will never know if we just choose to ignore the clear inconsistencies. Does that mean that I am accusing anyone of war crimes? No, what I have said is that the Administration cannot justify the killing of an unarmed man who was not attacking simply because we were at war with him. If that were the only requirement, it might be appropriate to shoot an enemy despite the fact that he had his arm raised in surrender.
So, what was UBL doing at the time he was shot? We don't know. We have heard several stories about that. Untrue stories: remember the firefight UBL supposedly was involved in when he grabbed awoman grabbed to shield him? Not true, it turns out; neither the firefight nor the woman grab (and to make things even more unclear, the woman supposedly was one of his wives for awhile, and then that became inoperative.) We know he was not armed at the time of the kill, but we do not have a clear definition of what was going on. So, this could be cleared up simply by a clear statement of what was going on.
Mr. English is correct in claiming that the Administration has made a hash of this story but the question remains: what happened and why did the Administration change its story repeatedly. Is this a case where the cover-up is worse than what is being hidden?
"Nonsense. You are claiming that the Administration's contradictory statements on the raid raise a suspicion that the killing was unjustified, and that the Adminstration is trying to cover things up. If the Adminstration is engaged in a cover-up, then the people they are trying to protect are the Seals. So explain to me again how you are not accusing them of a war crime? I don't care if the Obama Adminstration presented a 100 different versions of what happened. All that proves is, as Prof. Reynolds notes at Instapundit, that while the military handled the operation itself, the same band of incompetents at the White House handled the post-operation."
patricks sarsfield replies: Mr. English MAY be right that the inconsistencies have nothing to do with what actually happened in Abbotabad. OR, he may be wrong. We will never know if we just choose to ignore the clear inconsistencies. Does that mean that I am accusing anyone of war crimes? No, what I have said is that the Administration cannot justify the killing of an unarmed man who was not attacking simply because we were at war with him. If that were the only requirement, it might be appropriate to shoot an enemy despite the fact that he had his arm raised in surrender.
So, what was UBL doing at the time he was shot? We don't know. We have heard several stories about that. Untrue stories: remember the firefight UBL supposedly was involved in when he grabbed awoman grabbed to shield him? Not true, it turns out; neither the firefight nor the woman grab (and to make things even more unclear, the woman supposedly was one of his wives for awhile, and then that became inoperative.) We know he was not armed at the time of the kill, but we do not have a clear definition of what was going on. So, this could be cleared up simply by a clear statement of what was going on.
Mr. English is correct in claiming that the Administration has made a hash of this story but the question remains: what happened and why did the Administration change its story repeatedly. Is this a case where the cover-up is worse than what is being hidden?
5.17.2011 | 8:08pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian English referenced an article from the LA Times on the question we have been discussing. The quote from that article below shows that the central question is what UBL was doing at the time of the kill:
"The official U.S. position is that if our commandos had been completely assured of their safety, the U.S. would have accepted Bin Laden's surrender. But there is a hint of unreality or pretense here. Realistically, there was no way for Bin Laden to credibly ensure anyone's safety. That's why the raid on his compound was almost certainly a mission to kill, or at any rate almost certain to end in his death.
But that doesn't make his killing an extrajudicial execution. As the 1995 U.S. Naval Handbook states, "the law of armed conflict does not precisely define [how] surrender … may be accomplished in practical terms." Terrorists do and should face much greater obstacles — in the heat of battle, sometimes insuperable obstacles — when attempting to credibly surrender. Certainly the rule that a soldier can halt all gunfire in the heat of battle merely by communicating an "intention" to surrender doesn't apply to a self-declared flouter of the laws of war who has repeatedly endorsed the use of human bombs and could easily have explosives strapped to his back. If Bin Laden wanted to surrender, he could and should have done it sometime in the last decade. He could not do it by raising his hands during an attack on his compound."
Clearly the law professor author of the quoted article would impose a lesser standard on the shooting than the Administration says it did (the law professor sees no way that UBL could be found to be surrendering; the Administration insisted that it would have been possible). Yet, at the same time, the law professor admits that the key question was whether UBL was surrendering or not. Was he? We just don't know; so, we have no clear information on the justification for the killing.
"The official U.S. position is that if our commandos had been completely assured of their safety, the U.S. would have accepted Bin Laden's surrender. But there is a hint of unreality or pretense here. Realistically, there was no way for Bin Laden to credibly ensure anyone's safety. That's why the raid on his compound was almost certainly a mission to kill, or at any rate almost certain to end in his death.
But that doesn't make his killing an extrajudicial execution. As the 1995 U.S. Naval Handbook states, "the law of armed conflict does not precisely define [how] surrender … may be accomplished in practical terms." Terrorists do and should face much greater obstacles — in the heat of battle, sometimes insuperable obstacles — when attempting to credibly surrender. Certainly the rule that a soldier can halt all gunfire in the heat of battle merely by communicating an "intention" to surrender doesn't apply to a self-declared flouter of the laws of war who has repeatedly endorsed the use of human bombs and could easily have explosives strapped to his back. If Bin Laden wanted to surrender, he could and should have done it sometime in the last decade. He could not do it by raising his hands during an attack on his compound."
Clearly the law professor author of the quoted article would impose a lesser standard on the shooting than the Administration says it did (the law professor sees no way that UBL could be found to be surrendering; the Administration insisted that it would have been possible). Yet, at the same time, the law professor admits that the key question was whether UBL was surrendering or not. Was he? We just don't know; so, we have no clear information on the justification for the killing.
5.18.2011 | 9:06am
Brian English says:
"No, what I have said is that the Administration cannot justify the killing of an unarmed man who was not attacking simply because we were at war with him. If that were the only requirement, it might be appropriate to shoot an enemy despite the fact that he had his arm raised in surrender."
Was the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane a war crime?
Does an offer of surrender have to be accepted in all circumstances?
The CIA paramilitary officers who were the first Americans in Afghanistan after 9-11 were told their mission was to kill bin Laden, not capture him. Is that order a war crime?
After Malmedy, US Command issued an order that SS troops and paratroopers were not to be taken prisoner, they were to be shot on sight. Was that order a war crime?
And by the way, I think you are right that the Administration is lying when it says that taking bin Laden alive was an option. The team of lawyers and interrogators magically appeared when protests from the Left about the killing started.
Was the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane a war crime?
Does an offer of surrender have to be accepted in all circumstances?
The CIA paramilitary officers who were the first Americans in Afghanistan after 9-11 were told their mission was to kill bin Laden, not capture him. Is that order a war crime?
After Malmedy, US Command issued an order that SS troops and paratroopers were not to be taken prisoner, they were to be shot on sight. Was that order a war crime?
And by the way, I think you are right that the Administration is lying when it says that taking bin Laden alive was an option. The team of lawyers and interrogators magically appeared when protests from the Left about the killing started.
5.18.2011 | 3:50pm
andrew says:
interestingly, professor reno seems to concede that OBL's "capture/trial" would have been the "ideal." his claim, in contrast, is that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. i am not quite sure this claim alone makes him a moral relativist.
relatedly, i wonder what professor reno would think about "harm reduction" and, for example, passing out clean needles to drug addicts:
(1) the "ideal" is the addicts' flourishing
(2) giving them clean needles prevents disease (harm reduction) BUT enables their addiction and therefore interferes with their flourishing
(3) ergo, passing out clean needles is (at least to me) morally objectionable
methinks ideals are like stars to the explorers of the age of discovery -- without them we are lost.
relatedly, i wonder what professor reno would think about "harm reduction" and, for example, passing out clean needles to drug addicts:
(1) the "ideal" is the addicts' flourishing
(2) giving them clean needles prevents disease (harm reduction) BUT enables their addiction and therefore interferes with their flourishing
(3) ergo, passing out clean needles is (at least to me) morally objectionable
methinks ideals are like stars to the explorers of the age of discovery -- without them we are lost.
5.18.2011 | 10:10pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian English asks:
"Was the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane a war crime?
Does an offer of surrender have to be accepted in all circumstances?"
The answer to both questions is "no." The Yamamoto killing may not, though, be comparable to the UBL situation. Yamamoto was not in our power when his plane was shot down. Rather, our planes were "closing with the enemy by means of fire" when the shot occurred and fire on a non-surrendering enemy plane in the midst of war conduct (Yamamoto was inspecting his troops) is clearly appropriate.
What was the situation in the UBL bedroom? We have gotten conflicting stories in that regard. I would have had no problem with a bomb or artillery shell dropped on the UBL house; that's war. Nor would I have had a problem with a burst of gunfire, however long, fired into and around the room UBL was in as a means of "recon by fire." If, though, UBL was shot when he was known to be unarmed and was surrendering, there might be a problem. Facts occurred in the UBL kill room. We have gotten conflicting stories on what those facts were. That is suspicious.
"Was the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane a war crime?
Does an offer of surrender have to be accepted in all circumstances?"
The answer to both questions is "no." The Yamamoto killing may not, though, be comparable to the UBL situation. Yamamoto was not in our power when his plane was shot down. Rather, our planes were "closing with the enemy by means of fire" when the shot occurred and fire on a non-surrendering enemy plane in the midst of war conduct (Yamamoto was inspecting his troops) is clearly appropriate.
What was the situation in the UBL bedroom? We have gotten conflicting stories in that regard. I would have had no problem with a bomb or artillery shell dropped on the UBL house; that's war. Nor would I have had a problem with a burst of gunfire, however long, fired into and around the room UBL was in as a means of "recon by fire." If, though, UBL was shot when he was known to be unarmed and was surrendering, there might be a problem. Facts occurred in the UBL kill room. We have gotten conflicting stories on what those facts were. That is suspicious.
5.27.2011 | 3:30pm
Walter says:
So in Reno's reading of the Bible, Jesus says "be not perfect"?
Exactly the opposite of what the Bible actually says?
Exactly the opposite of what the Bible actually says?
6.5.2011 | 10:32pm
Cleora Riggins says:
If Mr. English, who has thrown around a claim about a non-existent "burden of proof," really wants to address this from an evidentiary pov, let's look at the evidentiary principle that inconsistent stories are admissible against an adverse party (here the Administration). I can meet what is more properly called my "burden of persuasion" (that is, the burden of going forward when challenged, in counterpoise to the ultimate burden of proof ), by showing that there were such inconsistencies and that the killing of an unarmed man not attacking can not be justified solely on the basis that we were at war with that person. A more interesting case is the whole involvement of the US in the bogus semi-war against Muammar Qaddaffi. He has not made war on the US per se (at least for a number of years). President Obama apparently does not feel strongly that he has a case for sending Seal Team Six against someone who may be a bit easier to locate than bin Laden was.
6.9.2011 | 4:33pm
Minutillo So says:
Indeed, after two weeks, the actual level of street violence in response to bin Laden's death does not seem to have risen to the levels of the riots that occurred in response to a few Danish cartoons that made fun of Muslims and Muhammad. People can feel awfully self-righteous about acting violently against people who are unlikely to hit back. John Yoo is an idiot, who ought to have been disbarred for incompetence - except that by being politically radical, he's found friends. So just as the Left has its in-house fools, so does the Right. Consult John Yoo indeed! What is First Things coming to?
There is a clear moral principle at stake here, namely that the civil magistrate is bound and entitled to protect the public against unjust aggressors by the use of necessary and proportionate means. Bringing to justice offenders subject to his jurisdiction is one of those means; waging war against external aggressors is another.
It is fanciful to suggest that the rules of procedure designed to be employed in the one case are applicable to the other.
External enemies are killed, not because to punish their wickedness, but to prevent them harming the public. Even in the case of rebels, who take up arms, it is customary for the magistrate to declare a state of siege and to suspend the constitutional guarantees. What is this, but a recognition that, in such a case, he is engaged, not in the punishment of crime but in a war against enemies of the people?