webhotep.com

William S. Harralson J.D.

Was america right to take out osama bin ladern? Or Should the U.S. have Taken the moral high groung?

On the evening of May 1, 2911 along with millions of others I watched television news reports on CNN concerning the death of Osama bin Laden.   American President Barack Obama gave an eloquent speech briefly outlining the events that preceded the U.S. military assault upon bin Laden’s residence in Pakistan that culminated in bin Laden’s demise.    I took special note of the President's remark that the murder of bin Laden served to establish that a violent extremist was finally "…brought to justice."   As a student of Western jurisprudence I found that statement quite troubling.

 
By all accounts bin Laden and his cohorts were confronted by a team of U.S. Navy Seals during twilight hours.   Reports indicate that he was asked to surrender.  When he failed to comply and instead resisted, bin Laden was shot in the head, the chest, and then pronounced dead.

For a great many reasons which are too numerous to articulate at this moment I feel that America is now sending a broader, regrettable message to the world.    The death of bin Laden is being characterized as an example of justice administered by a civilized nation, namely, the United States.    From my perspective, perhaps a more accurate characterization of this incident would be to state that bin Laden was subjected to a form of justice that found its genesis during antiquity known as the "lex talionis," translated the Law of Retaliation or more aptly,  the law of "an eye for an eye."   

The lex talionis is mentioned a number of times in the Hebrew scriptures of the Jewish Talmud and the Old Testament writings of the Christian Bible.   This was the law administered nearly 4,000 years ago by many ancient Near Eastern cultures originating with the Babylonians in the country which is modern-day Iraq.    The concept can be traced directly to the Code of Hammurabi authored at some point during the 17^th century BCE.   Under the provisions of the lex talionis, if you killed an individual by stoning then you would be killed, in turn, by stoning.  If you were responsible for maiming an individual by excising a limb then justice was served when in response your limb was likewise violently removed.   

Although there may be some who still find that the lex talionis should be applied modernly with equal force as applied by the ancients, I cannot support the concept.    Asking an individual to surrender and then responding by shooting him in the head is not, in my view, a "just" response nor can it ever by justified if there was an alternative and non-lethal means of diffusing the situation.   Simply put, there is no such thing as a "just" war and, similarly, there can never be a justified murder.   In the case of bin Laden I am convinced that with all of the great technological devices at the disposal of our government surely there was a way to immobilize bin Laden and his cohorts short of inflicting death.   I note that an unidentified woman, perhaps one of his wives, stood as a human shield in front of bin Laden and that she, too was shot.  One of bin Laden’s sons was also shot and killed.   We may never know why mother and son were present, the nature of their political beliefs or their complicity if any in the senior bin Laden’s criminal acts.   Does it or should it matter?   Were their deaths simply collateral damage?

During the skirmish none of the U.S. Navy Seals were killed or injured.   Based upon what we have heard thus far, clearly further investigation and transparency is called for so that the world will know the truth of the events surrounding the death of bin Laden and others who were mortally wounded.

There is no question that bin Laden caused untold grief and pain for many individuals during his brief  lifetime.  I am very sympathetic with those who lost loved ones at the hands of bin Laden, those who suffer in pain and whose lives were forever changed by the World Trade Center bombings in 1993, the deaths in Somalia, and the September 11 tragedies.    Their pain is real and so is their grief.   And yet, I am inclined to believe that the murder of bin Laden (as opposed to a criminal prosecution) will not bring a complete end to their pain and grief any more than his death will mark the end of terrorism and brutality in this world.   

Hasn’t America learned the lessons of history?    Adolph Hitler was an evil man but the death of Hitler did not mark the end of anti-Semitism.   George Wallace was a man filled with hatred and ill-will directed towards African-Americans but the passing of the former Alabama governor did not signify the end of racism and bigotry in this country.     

Last evening President Obama missed a tremendous opportunity to challenge Americans and the world to see the demise of bin Laden as a chance to begin re-writing this country’s anti-terrorism narrative for the 21^st century.    But there is still time for our nation to seize this pivotal moment in history…time to usher in a new chapter marked by a renewal (or an initiation for some) of America’s resolve to sow seeds of tolerance, patience, understanding, compassion, brotherhood, and peace throughout the world community.    Why, you ask, should we talk about Peace at a time like this?    Today we are engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We are participating in military air strikes in Libya.   This is precisely the moment in time when people of goodwill must re-visit, re-affirm, and re-dedicate themselves to upholding the sanctity of all human life.   

This is no time for cheering and revelry because one man has been murdered.  Let us not forget that no matter how evil or distorted the thinking or acts of bin Laden may have been that, in the final analysis, he was simply just a man;  a man with human faults, human needs, human insecurities, and human albeit corrupt aspirations.    He was an imperfect human being with imperfect and improper motives.    His image as a renowned terrorist was larger than life but, in the end, he was simply a man.

No one can reasonably defend bin Laden.    He committed heinous, brutal, and despicable acts of violence.   That has been well established.    He should have been prosecuted and punished for his criminal acts against humanity.   The question that I raise, however, centers upon the fact that he was tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished all in a matter of minutes in an act of violence.

Some will say that that bin Laden deserved to die a sudden and violent death.   'He got what was coming to him!' they shout in the streets of Times Square, New York.  Did get what he deserved?    Does his violent death satisfy some carnal or depraved longing within Humankind to see someone suffer because he has made others suffer?   Is that how we will forever define Justice?    Is that the kind of Justice that we want our children to embrace in the future?  

This is the same America who preaches to Cuba, China and North Korea about respect for democracy and the "rule of law."    We chastise them for their repressive governments, military regimes, and failure to embrace Western norms of democracy.    We scold them for the Tieneman Square massacre.   We have scolded Fidel Castro for brutalizing and demoralizing his citizens.   We scolded the Egyptian government for killing unarmed protestors just a few months ago.   As I write these words we are scolding Gadafy for brutalizing

civilians in Libya.  How can America be so hypocritical?   Is the murder of bin Laden an illustration of America's "rule of law"?   Is that what democracy means?   Does it mean that Western conceptions of "due process of law" and "equal protection under the law" and the "presumption of innocence" are simply tossed aside when we run out of patience?    Would Justice have been too slow a process for America to endure?  

Let us turn back the clock a bit.  I think that if bin Laden had been captured six months after September 11, 2001, then America might have taken pains to place him in custody and see that he was tried before a court of law.   We would not want to be perceived by the world as "rushing to justice."    Had America remained true to its revered principles of justice then true Justice, as embodied by the U.S. Constitution, would have been served.    There was certainly adequate precedent that America could have followed. 

You will recall the late Iraqi president Sadaam Hussein, a brutal dictator and terrorist who killed scores of individuals over a period of many years.   Sadaam Hussein; the man accused of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction for use against Iraqi citizens and possibly the U.S.    Sadaam Hussein, the poster boy for world terrorism and hatred.    Have we forgotten that he was the individual first suspected of being the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States?   When he was finally captured, despite the notorious crimes that he committed against humanity he was not executed upon sighting.   Instead, he was taken into physical custody by the authorities.  Hussein received not one but two criminal trials over the span of several years.   

Hussein was afforded the right to face his accusers and to present a defense.  He was provided with legal counsel.  He was fed and clothed.   He received necessary medications.  I believe that a man sodespised and loathed by many throughout the world was treated with dignity and respect not because he had earned fair treatment but by virtue of the fact that he was a human being.  Ultimately he was convicted of his crimes. The process followed by the Iraqi government was not unique.   It reflected, principally, traditional notions of American justice.   

So I must ask why we did not follow precedent yesterday in Pakistan in dealing with bin Laden?    Well, just examine the record of the intervening 10-year period:  Bin Laden humiliated the U.S. by transmitting cryptic messages from undetermined locations...he mocked the U.S.....he taunted the U.S....he avoided capture...he moved from place to place under our radar.     Many Americans became understandably enraged because he symbolized not just terrorism, but because he was a pointed reminder that all of America's resources had been outwitted.    To some, bin Laden made a mockery of the United States.    I guess that after ten years of frustration America ran out of patience and, thus, America also ran out of justice.

No, I cannot rejoice today.   That he suffered a violent death is from my perspective as a Christian nothing to dance and rejoice about.   I sincerely hope that people of goodwill, and in particular People of Faith and moral conviction will seize this opportunity to speak out against violent atrocities in any form. 

 It is my simple prayer that our society will come to embrace the principles of non-violence espoused by M.L.King, Ghandi, and others.  Violence, especially when inflicted against those who perpetrate violence, only breeds and fuels more violence.  Hatred and resentment only breed more hatred and resentment.  Intolerance and frustration only breed greater intolerance and frustration.     To have brought bin Laden to justice by presenting him before an international court of law,  convict him, and sentence him to life in prison would have set the stage for a new world order rooted in Justice and Peace.   America would have served notice of an unyielding commitment to the notion that every human being regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity, irrespective of how nominal or outrageous their conduct, is entitled to receive due process of law.   But that did not happen.   America was mad, outraged, and reverted to the justice of lex talionis. 

This is not a day to rejoice.  America has not taken a great step forward in the war against terrorism.  It has taken momentous strides backward....

W.S. H.

May 2, 2011

William S. Harralson, J.D. is a trained mediator specializing in civil rights, employment, personal injury, and conflict involving clergy and religious congregations.   He has been particularly effective in mediating disputes where sensitive cross-cultural, ethnic, and racial issues adversely impact the relationship between the disputants.  Harralson volunteers with a number of public and private entities including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Contra Costa County Attorney Fee Mediation Program, and Small Claims Division-Alameda County Superior Court.   His experience also includes more than 18 years of civil litigation as a legal assistant and independent advisor to California attorneys.

.