A few diaries, commentaries and columns have begun to appear recently making a number of charges and comparisons that push the envelope of reasonable thinking. In an attempt to at least relieve some of my growing frustration with these lines of argument, I am writing this diary in response.
To paraphrase, the opinions I am speaking of are 1) bin Laden’s rights were violated and the U.S. committed a crime in his killing and 2) if another country did to the U.S. what the U.S. did to bin Laden, it would be called an act of terrorism.
Now, I admit I am no lawyer so I will not be able to quote international law in this reply to the above, but I am calling B.S. on these opinions and hope to show that they are not only wrong, but ridiculous as well.
To the first opinion and variations thereof: bin Laden’s rights were violated and the U.S. committed a crime in his killing; at the risk of going Godwin, let me use a an example from history to illustrate why this is B.S.
Let’s say that during the Second World War, the allies developed a plan that would have successfully killed Hitler. Would that have been immoral, criminal or wrong? Would the allies have been assuming the right to summarily execute anyone they didn’t like? Would they by assassinating Hitler, be committing a war crime?
The simple answer of course is no, they would not. Hitler was actively at war with the allied states and was leading a military force that had standing orders to attack and destroy these states as much as possible. Hitler’s goal was the destruction of the allied states by any means possible. As such, Hitler was a legitimate target for counter attack and killing him, whether by assassination, bombing from the air or execution was permissible.
Now assume that the allies made the attempt and were in position to capture Hitler if they so wished. Were they legally or morally obligated to do so? Again no, Hitler would remain a legitimate target for death so long as he posed a threat or there was a risk of escape. In other words, even if Hitler threw up his hands, declared he was surrendering and demonstrated that he was sincere in this action, so long as he remained in command of a force that possessed the ability to attack the allies, he remained a legitimate target. So long as there was a danger that Hitler might escape or could not be successfully captured, or if the simple fact that by being alive he posed a risk, he could still be killed.
This is not as unusual or objectionable as it sounds. In warfare, there a numerous examples of soldiers having to kill their captives because they were unable to transport them back to secure lines. So long as an enemy combatant poses a risk or a threat they remain a legitimate target, even if they are unarmed. The higher the value target, the greater the risk they pose if they remain alive and free.
In the case of bin Laden, he falls squarely into the category of high value target. The attacking force was under no obligation to capture bin Laden alive, even if the possibility existed. Bin Laden had declared war on the United States, had engaged in an act of war and clearly was continuing in his efforts to bring more death and destruction to the country. Bin Laden, by simply being alive, posed a continuing risk to the United States and there is a very good argument to be made that capturing him would only have compounded that risk.
The mistake some observers make is in treating bin Laden like a criminal. As such, they argue he had rights, such as due process, the right to considered innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney. Under this treatment, the soldiers who captured him were legally bound to capture him alive and to only use deadly force if he violently resisted arrest.
But bin Laden was not a criminal and never was, and the attack on his compound was not an arrest but a military action in time of war. Much like Yasser Arafat, bin Laden was the leader of a multinational military force that had declared war against a sovereign state and was actively prosecuting that war. Bin Laden wasn’t so much a terrorist as a he was a war lord and like Yasser Arafat he had all of the characteristics and responsibilities of a national leader.
The only reason that confusion over this point even exists, is the fault of the Bush White House and their desire to have it both ways. They wanted to treat their enemy as nothing more than common criminals but also wanted to deny them the rights and protections people accused of crimes are supposed to have. As a result, they muddied the waters and resorted to accusing Democrats of wanting to provide Miranda rights to terrorists. It is this argument that is the basis for the entire “bin Laden had rights” meme that we are hearing today.
As a war lord, bin Laden did not have the right to due process, the presumption of innocence or the right to legal representation. Bin Laden was protected to a degree by the Geneva convention, but as a non-signatory to that agreement and by demonstrating that the force he led was not observing the convention, those protections were severely limited.
This does not mean that the United States had the right to torture him or anyone else they captured. The U.S. has signed multiple agreements and statutes renouncing and criminalizing torture. The status of a captive, whether criminal, terrorist or military combatant, does not matter in this question; torture by citizens of the United States on anyone is a criminal offence under U.S. law. But no law, agreement or convention, either U.S. or International, was violated in the killing of bin Laden or in the disposal of his body.
On the second opinion “if another country did to the U.S. what the U.S. did to bin Laden, it would be called an act of terrorism.” this comparison is both so infantile and nonsensical that it has to twist the circumstances of the event to try and find legitimacy. It is so much B.S. I am surprised it didn’t smell even to those who made the argument.
Firstly, the comparison is made asking a “what if” another country killed the President of the U.S. and subsequently dumped his body into the sea. Would that be okay? If not, why not? The simple answer is, it would be okay if the country launching the attack was at war with the United States or saw the President as a declared threat to its safety and security. There are certainly many nations and groups that would love to be able to attack the U.S. in the same way but lack the technical means to do so.
But the U.S. didn’t just decide to attack and kill bin Laden because they didn’t like him. He was a declared and proven threat to the safety and security of the United States. Were that threat not to exist, there would have been no legitimate reason to make the attack and there would have been no attack. For this reason, Quaddafi, Kim Jong Il and other assorted dictators around the globe sleep peacefully at night. They know that the U.S. is not going to be trying to attack or bomb them any time soon. It is the reason there was no declaration to find Arafat “dead or alive” by any President. No other leader met the criteria of direct personal threat that bin Laden reached. This “what if” comparison is therefore simply idiotic.
Secondly, the comparison is made between drone strikes in Pakistan and a “what if” of a Pakistani reprisal. If Pakistan decided to end the drone strikes by bombing the control centre in Nevada, would the U.S. be okay with that? What is interesting about this question, is that it is usually made by people who condemn Israel for engaging in precisely this type of action against rocket attacks from Gaza. It begs the question, if you would be okay with Pakistan striking at Nevada for the drone strikes, why aren’t you okay with Israel striking at the rocket sites? But I digress.
Again, the comparison is nothing less than idiotic. If Pakistan truly wanted to end the drone strikes, it has numerous options available to it beyond attacking Nevada. As allies, they could request the U.S. cease the attacks. As a member state they could take their grievance to the United Nations to pressure the U.S. into stopping the attacks. As a nation state, they could use their military to interdict and shoot down the drones and finally, if all else failed and they felt the circumstances warranted the action, they could attack the Nevada facility. In doing so, they would be declaring war on the United States as Japan did by bombing Pearl Harbour.
The people making these comparisons are confusing responsible states with rogue states. In responsible states, the necessity of military action is not present as the leaders respond to alternative means of resolving differences. They engage in negotiation, they take steps to reduce tension or to demonstrate a perceived risk does not exist. They can be reasoned with and will respond to international pressure and more importantly, will tend to keep to signed agreements. A rogue state can not be negotiated with and any agreements reached are unlikely to be honoured. It is usually dominated by a single individual or political group that is dedicated to war or aggression and is unresponsive to appeals for peaceful resolution. When a rogue state begins to act aggressively against other states or aids groups in making attacks against other states, inevitably the only effective response is military action.
Unless those who are asking these “what if” questions are saying that the United States is a rogue state dominated by a person or group dedicated to war and unresponsive to appeals for negotiated resolutions and that any agreements reached with the U.S. are unlikely to be kept, the questions are baseless and their comparisons ridiculous.