The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, both morally and legally.
Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of Al Qaeda, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very phrase "check mate" means "the king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle.
Yet there are those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral and illegal. These critics characterize such actions as "extrajudicial executions" and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals who must be arrested and brought to trial.
The operation that resulted in Bin Laden's death was a military action calculated to kill rather than to "arrest" him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers.
Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected--as it was by the NATO forces that rocketed Ghadafy's compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure targeted killing with no possibility of live capture. The operation directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part, to have preserved the theoretical option of "arrest", though the likelihood of a live capture was virtually impossible under the circumstances. Indeed it is likely that Bin Laden's death was deemed preferential to his capture and trial, because the latter would have raised the probability that Al Qaeda would take hostages and try to exchange them for Bin Laden.
Indeed, a US national security official has confirmed to Reuters that "this was a kill operation" and there was no desire to capture Bin Laden alive. This was a targeted kill appropriate for a military combatant but not for an ordinary (or even extraordinary) criminal.
Nonetheless, our government felt it necessary to announce that Bin Laden was shot after he allegedly resisted thus suggesting he was not killed in cold blood. But it is clear that he would have been killed whether or not he resisted, since this was a kill operation from the outset and it is unlikely he was ever given the opportunity to surrender an opportunity not required under the laws of war.
Accordingly, those who have opposed the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan, and the United Nations. Former British Foreign Secretary once said, "The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive." The French foreign ministry has declared "that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable." The Italian Foreign Minister has said, "Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations." The Russians have asserted that "Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings.'" Javier Solana has noted that the "European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings." The Jordanians have said, "Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination and its position on this has always been clear." And Kofi Annan has declared "that extrajudicial killings are violations of international law."
Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden by the US. The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing was directed at one country. Guess which one? Israel, of course.
Israel developed the concept of targeted killings and used it effectively against the "Osama Bin Laden's" of Hamas, who directed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, killing and wounding more Israelis, as a percentage of its population, than the number killed by Bin Laden. It was when Israel managed to kill the head of Hamas, that the international community, with the striking exception of the United States, decided that targeted killing was illegal and immoral.
But now that it has been used against an enemy of Britain, France, Italy and other European nations, the tune has changed. Suddenly targeted killing is not only legal and moral, it is praiseworthy (except, of course, to Hamas, which immediately condemned the US killing of Bin Laden).
Well the truth is that when used properly, targeted killing has always been deserving of approval--even when employed by Israel, a nation against which a double standard always seems to be applied.
Indeed, in Israel, the use of targeted killings has been closely regulated by its Supreme Court and permitted only against terrorists who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United States, on the other hand, the decisions to use this tactic is made by the President alone, without any form of judicial review. So let the world stop applying a double standard to Israel and let it start judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool in the war against terrorism.
**Alan Dershowitz's latest novel is The Trials of Zion.
They did not forge passports, enter a country, do it in secret and then leave secretly, denying the whole thing.
Yes they did. Pakistan didn't give them permission to come, so they violated its sovereignty to kill an old, unarmed man. If Israel had done it, people'd be singing a different tune.
Because I seem to recall listening to the President of the United States say "we did this" and Pakistan rushed to claim they had a hand in it, as well.
Kill an old, unarmed man? Like the IDF did several months back. Only, instead of a terrorist mastermind that coordinated the slaughter of thousands, they burst into some old guy's house and shot him in his bed.
Much different than UAE hunting down killers, finding they used forged passports, having countries like Ireland expel diplomats over this.
The difference between the US and Israel is this that operation took 4 years to plan and was the only realistic solution.
Israel conducts heavily armed military operations as first resort and first option. They conduct armed raids so often, one wonders why they're so incompetent at it.
Thanks for spotlighting that double standard the article is about, though.
It's of irrelevance that their charter flat out says that Israel will exist until it ceases to exists in the hands of hamas. It's irrelevant that they support and pat on the back any act of aggression against Israel ( or that they condemned the assassination of OBL). It doesn't matter that they are calling on Fatah to rescind recognition of Israel, it doesn't matter that they encourage violent resistance against Israel. As far as these people are concerned, Israel should just lay down and wait her demise without resistance, while the rest of the world has a right to carry out targeted assassinations against terrorists.
I honestly don't care what they say, that they claim that it isn't racist or antisemitic, I know better.
And here I was thinking the law is the law is the law.
No. That's what YOU'RE saying. Back to the old grind with the straw men, I see.
As a combat veteran of the VietNam War, I do extend my empathy to the soldiers who were a part of this operation. I learned then to disregard the moral consequences of my actions. It would make me less of a soldier. And so shall it be to our brave warriors involved in this incident. Being clandistine, there will be no parades or recognition for their dedication to duty or actions. What they will have left is the guilt of taking another human's life. No matter your creed or lack thereof, we all live with this basic tenet; "Do unto others as you have them do unto you". I have tried for forty years to reconcile this. The medals and decorations were of no effect.
Godspeed to our Soldiers
Robert Bolt.
A Man for all Seasons
Like others have said...cut off the head of the snake and the body tends to die.
After the Metro bombing in Russia President went on TV and told the whole world "The masterminds behind a double suicide bombing on the Moscow Metro will be destroyed.
Not too many weeks later we were told the peope behind the operation were killed by Russian forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8593961.stm
Then there's assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, but that's clearly a political matter that has nothing to do with international terrorism.