The terms of the war have been negotiated.
Report to the nearest disintegration chamber immediately.
-PJ
Posted on 05/04/2011 4:38:31 AM PDT by SJackson
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 were 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 Ladens” 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 decision 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/04/osama-dead-and-targeted-killing-vindicated/
It’s F’ed up that they are going to throw the Seals under the bus when they were ordered to shoot on site! Obama is a POS
First, D is approving our action and using it to defend Israel. He is calling out European countries.
Second, if possible we should have captured OBL, kept our mouths shut, and interrogated him in a secret facility. But everyone here said “hell no” to that. We should have taken his hard drives and him. But everyone was afraid to have him.
I’m a little torn on this one. I shed no tears for Bin Laden, but I think one plausible account of the assassination of President Kennedy is that it was a response by Castro to our repeated attempts to assassinate him. On the other hand, our showing restraint is not necessarily going to be matched by suicidal adversaries who would like nothing better than to take out one of our leaders. War is hell, but we also need some way that emissaries from opposing sides can meet to negotiate without expecting the other side to attack them. Of course, the operation to find and kill Bin Laden had nothing to do with negotiations. I guess I need to get over it and accept that it is open season on everyone’s leaders.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Targeted killing can also save lives and intelligence data. We are so punctilious now about collateral damage, we should be endorsing targeted killing. AD has made some good points but it isn’t because the world hates Israel, it’s simply that the world has gotten too squeamish. Tertiary stage of malign hypercivilization.
Bush would have taken him alive. O and team could not imagine what to do with him. It was all a little too quick and a little too unplanned.
I remember the event and the photos. I also remember JFK's faux indignation. These people nauseate me.
It might have been nice to interrogate him, but this administration isn't up for that. Eric Holder would have him sent straight to NYC, sidestepping the Congressional funding ban on moving prisoners from GITMO. And without enhanced interrogation, we probably wouldn't have gotten much.
meant to include you in post 9.
Bin Laden wasn’t a political leader, he was the stragic commander of an organization with which we were at war. Killing him is no different than killing an officer in the field. And as illegal combatants, none of these guys wear the required uniforms and symbols of rank. Personally I’d question why we somehow differentiate this as a “targeted” killing. As to Castro, we weren’t at war with Cuba, which would have made it problematical. If we were engaged in a military conflict, that uniform he wore would have made him a legitimate target.
Probably not his smartest move, but largely forgotten when compared to the removal of the Shah
A great essay on liberal hypocrisy.
OBL had literally, from his own mouth and hand, declared war on the USA. He also said he would not distinguish between military and civilian targets, we were all “combatants” to him because we voted for war-mongers etc.
So killing him should not leave you torn. At all. I’m not aware, in your example, that Castro had declared a terror war on the USA, and followed it up by bombing embassies, the WTC etc. Apples and oranges.
It’s not that I feel bad about Osama being killed. It’s that I am uneasy about a world in which the assassination of political leaders becomes frequent. Although I’m not sure why. Maybe a world in which war was primarily conducted through efforts to decapitate the other side’s leadership would be less bad than one which aimed at mass casualties.
During the Revolutionary War era, it was not considered sporting to shoot enemy officers in battle. Now they are a sniper’s first target. Why should be drop Hellfires on underlings and henchmen, but not the boss of the terrorists worldwide?
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The terms of the war have been negotiated.
Report to the nearest disintegration chamber immediately.
-PJ
You are correct, I have to repeat a post I made to another thread a few minutes ago.
You're mischaracterizing the circumstances. bin Laden was at the very least in strategic command, likely in operational command of an organization, yes, a terrorist organization comprised of illegal combatants including himself, with which we were at war. He was a combatant, and could be killed on sight. As was Admiral Yamamoto. If the objective was to kill him, as we killed British officers during the revolution, so be it.That doesn't mean the military can issue orders to kill you and me. Amongst the many problems I see in the reporting and discussion of this successful operation is the implication that somehow it was a domestic police operation. Which gives rise to the absurd references to assassination, it bothers me too. I could make a long list of enemy commanders over the centuries America would have loved to have killed had the opportunity presented itself. I'm glad we were successful this time.
This isn't political correctness or incorrectness, it's ignorance of history, understandable given the state of the media post-Vietnam. We killed an enemy commander on the field of his choosing.
What really bothers me is that we're not addressing an underlying problem.
This operation was the result of years of intelligence gathering, which along the way prevented other attacks, and resulted in the demise of many of our enemies.
Kudus to Obama for authorizing a high risk mission which could have ended in disaster or embarassment. That's what leaders do, and I'm glad he did it.
Were it not for the policies of the Bush administration, college kids would have had to find another reason to party Sunday night.
As we speak I suspect the top dozen Taliban/al Qaida leaders are on the move, thus vulnerable. Kill them, fine, but capture, which hasn't been the Obama way, might provide future benefits. Presuming they don't have to be mirandized, rather can be legally subjected to intense interrogation. And the interrogators don't have to fear prosecution. It's time for Holder to end that. And should a Seal Team member bloody a terrorists lip, he doesn't have to fear a Courts Martial.
It would be good for the nation of our President could revel in victory by recognizing the error of his ways, and perhaps sow the seeds of future success'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.