The Atlantic Times, June 2011
For 10 years the Americans hunted Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist. They finally found him in a complex of buildings in Abbottabad, Pakistan. That country’s military, especially its intelligence service, the ISI, has played a particularly dangerous game: allied with the US on the outside, infiltrated by extremists within. From the outset it was treacherous territory for any commando mission. The killing of bin Laden must be judged entirely from this perspective.
Let’s just reflect briefly on the biography of this man, hunted and eventually killed by Navy Seal Team Six: bin Laden was the leader of al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that has declared war on the US. On Sept. 11, 2001 al Qaeda killed more than 3,000 people on American territory.
Shortly after, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1373, stating “the need to combat by all means […] threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.” In addition, US Public Law 107-40 authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.”
As the leader of al Qaeda, bin Laden was that threat to international peace. US Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate hearing after the mission that killing an enemy commander in the field was “justified as an act of national self-defense.”
We can also look at it from point-blank range: According to US intelligence and statements bin Laden made himself, he did not intend to be taken alive. Any apparent surrender would have to have been treated with suspicion. There could have been hidden weapons, booby trap devices to set off a bomb, or bin Laden could have been wearing a concealed suicide vest. Bin Laden had to be considered a threat at all times. He was a legitimate target.
Most people can relate to the principles of just war. As the leader of a terrorist organization engaged in a war-like conflict against the US and other nations, bin Laden was an active combatant. Protecting innocent civilians from further attacks required neutralizing the leadership of a militant group engaged in and encouraging acts of terrorism. There can be no doubt that there was just cause in killing Osama bin Laden.
– Lutz Lichtenberger
As Pope John Paul II was beatified in Rome, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama sent the terrorist Osama bin Laden straight to hell. American fans of the Old Testament were not the only ones who celebrated. Germany’s chancellor, the leader of a Christian party, likewise expressed her happiness “that Osama bin Laden has successfully been killed.” Both – killing bin Laden and being happy about his death – were wrong.
Forget the legalistic issues of whether UN resolutions sanctioned the operation or if the US can be at war with an organization as loose as al Qaeda. Forget the (inevitable) violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
Ask instead: Is it possible that the SEALs went into that compound with orders to take no prisoners?
None of us were around in that bedroom in Abbottabad. Should we ever find out that an opportunity existed to capture Osama bin Laden and bundle him onto a helicopter, then the two fatal shots to the head (the woman in the room was shot in the leg) would have to be classified as a crime, a crime against civilization and the ideals of human rights and democracy.
Sometimes, the rule of law is a bother. But if those who defend it think their own laws are a nuisance and break them, they sink to the level of the enemies they’re fighting. Those who want to change the world, to make it better, must show that they can do so without resorting to the means of those they loathe. If you call yourself a role model, you have to demonstrate why you are worth emulating.
You don’t have to be the Pope, or even religious, to ask the following questions: How are we going to overcome violence if we ourselves keep using it, despite the better alternatives out there? If we, who claim to be civilized, claim to kill for higher purposes, why should those who already feel oppressed by our military and economic power hesitate to do so, too?
In a law-based society, executions are preceded by a trial, and then a verdict. Only then may the sentence be carried out. Some US states even suspend the Fifth Commandment – Thou shalt not kill! – when they want to.
Bin Laden as a defendant in court – that would have been an example worthy of a laws-based state. And there would have still been plenty of time left to allow the terrorist meet his maker – or rot in jail.
– Peter H. Koepf