a right royal state of affairs

Having been subjected to the whole palaver of the “will & kate” wedding, and also listening currently to some lectures on the US and French revolutions, I’m not exactly in a favourable mood to royalty at the moment, so had mixed feelings about the Queen’s visit to Ireland.

First of all let me make clear that I don’t harbor a grudge against the British (specifically the English) , since they are not individually responsible for the previous acts of their country, nor have I any issue with Britain itself, since while as an enduring entity it does have ownership of prior deeds, it has not only stopped it’s policies against us, but does and has done many things for our benefit (stopping the Nazis being the most notable, while we could cower in protected neutrality).

So if this was a state visit, by the Prime Minister, then I would consider it nothing but a good thing, a normal act between neighbours. The problem is, as Sir Humphrey might say, a question of hats, specifically a pointy metal one. Although the Queen is the head of state, she also is the living embodiment and defender of the institution of British Royalty. Now while royals from anywhere will always get my goat up, and might be welcomed as irrelevant wasters but still treated as guests, a lot of the worst things that happened in Ireland could be blamed more on the British royals than the British state. Not the invasions, or occupation, or taking of resources, or even the lasses faire cruelty in the famine, which could have been done by any state with any government, but the anti-catholic measures which were a direct result of the English crown wanting to remain protestant, and which inflicted the most objectionable hardships on Ireland, and sowed the seeds for a lot of the sectarian troubles that have racked the land ever since.

Since for most of our history ,catholic and Irish were pretty much synonymous, then I think the royal family, as distinct from the British state, have a specific debt and guilt when it comes to Ireland, which is why I think there’s something wrong about the Queen’s visit, unless it’s accompanied by acts of apology not for the acts of Britain, but the ideology of the crown that drove those acts. The problem is, there has been to my knowledge no symbolic renunciation of that ideology, and until there is I find it very out of place that the defender of that tradition, should lay a wreath for those who fought (and would still fight) against that tradition. Perhaps a slightly stretched analogy would be if a German chancellor were to lay a wreath at the cenotaph, without Germany having acknowledged that it was in the wrong in WWII. It’s not that countries can’t honour each other’s dead – I see no problem in paying tribute to dead german soldiers, since even though they fought for an evil cause, in most cases they were just swept along by that cause. But if the cause is not denounced, then the tribute is meaningless - the crown is on the one hand honouring people killed , but since the reasons behind the killing are not dealt with, in principle they’d be killed again if necessary, which defeats the purpose of it.

No one seems to mention that the hypocrisy with having the head of an insitution which explicitly discriminates against catholics, visit a catholic country, and express "sympathy" with the problems her insitution caused for them through said discrimination.

Ultimately all that’s needed is a symbolic act of contrition and denunciation of the tradition that caused ireland’s problems, but none seems forthcoming. On the contrary , the British Royalty preserves the rule that forbids a catholic ascending to the throne, then it would seem that the tradition lives on unchanged.

Of course there is pragmatism too, and in principle it is good and important that Britain and Ireland can focus on current and future partnership, and base our relation on that and not harking back to the unchangeable grievances of the past, and since that was probably the intention of the whole visit then there is a lot to be said for it. But if the Queen, who people praise always for handling things so well, and being so dignified etc. etc. really was dedicated to that mission, then surely she could make some form of apology for the 2nd institution she represents? Royals want to inherit by birth the rights and powers of the predecessors, but that means they also inherit their sins and responsibilities. Hat’s off to the queen, but only if she acknowledges the one she’s wearing.

terminate, with extreme prejudice

That apparently is the US army euphemism for assassination, and given that prejudice is never held to be a good thing, it would seem to be a self-condemning label. And in general it is, since extra-judicial killings while not only being outside of the workings of the courts, can easily be beyond the realm of justice as well, devoid as they are from the normal safeguards and procedures on which the rule of law depends.

So was the killing of an unarmed Bin Laden an assasination? And if it was, was it justified? It's interesting that the event came in the same week as Nato bombed a compound of Gadaffi's, killing his son in what was obviously an attempt to kill Gadaffi himself. Are the cases any different, or both ,or one, or neither justified?

While few people would mourn either's demise, I think Bin Laden would for sure receive least sympathy. Here was the self-confessed, proud perpetrator of an act which killed thousands of innocent people, and who remained a dangerous threat to society. Surely he would have been convicted easily, and would have received the death penalty in the US - so if both judgement and sentence were foregone conclusions, could it be so wrong to just take him out?

Gadaffi on the other hand is the head of state, and in principle the conflict there is a war between the Libyan state and NATO forces. But the very fact that the attacks on the sovereign country are to prevent 'war crimes' surely means the rules of war must be applied, and specifically the rules , i.e. the UN resolution, by which the war is being justified in international law. To put it in context, while no one considers it a war crime for Gadaffi to fire on Nato planes (just stupidity), I am sure he would go from leader to terrorist very rapidly if he somehow managed to successfully fire a scud (or whatever he uses) into 10 Downing Street or (miraculously) the White House. But if it's war, then surely the same rules apply to both sides?

Of course they must, and I think it highlights just what a paradoxical idea the notion of 'rules of war' is. The problem is, some rules are justified, but they can't operate independently of the grounds for the war itself. You can't have an unjust war fought justly, and neither can a war that is fought unjustly, ever be just. I believe there are unfortunately times when war is necessary, to preserve human life and rights, but the ends can never out rank the means - it is not morally coherent to kill civilians to save civilians, to trample human rights to further human rights. Of course war is always going to be bloody, so some utilitarian calculus will need to apply, but the whole point of rights is they can't be simply totted up and compared - the rights of each individual always count for something. This is what I think went wrong with the Iraq war - the allies were blind to the possibility, and then the reality, that the cure while not being anyway was bad as the disease, was similar to it - and not just abstractly (the general suffering and death unleashed) but also sometimes specifically - e.g. when Saddam's torture facility Abu Ghraib became infamous under it's new ownership. And this is what made it questionable - the very things that justified the war, arose in different forms because of it.

On the other hand though, if the war is justified, then I also believe there's no point being restrictive about what one can and can't do. War is war, and if necessary, then there can be no half measures - since it if justified at all then has to be completed, and completed quickly. Thus, in my view, if it's ok to kill the soldier manning the gun, then it's coherent to consider it ok to kill the commander whose order keep him there, or the leader who planned it. In fact, the commanders and leaders, since they have more power and possibility to change the situation, are in fact more culpable than the solder who is following orders. In addition, taking out 1 leader involves less bloodshed and would have more effect then taking out 10 commanders or 100 grunts.

So in fact far from being beyond the fringe in war, i think targeted assassinations are not just acceptable but even preferable, given that they have to involve less collateral damage and overall death than a clash of armies.

So I think they should be targetting Gadaffi, and I hope for everyone's sakes, the rebels, the civilians and even his soldiers, that they get him.

But what about Bin Laden? My own personal view is that if he was really just a criminal, then it would have been wrong to assassinate him, since it must be society that deals with criminals, not armies and not politicians. And crucial to the justice of society is that it follows procedure, since it is what holds the entire edifice together, and the whole is worth the occasional inefficiencies of some of its parts. But he claimed himself to be a 'at war' with the West, so surely then the rules of war apply, and make him fair game.

And even if he didn't claim to be a 'soldier' , the crucial difference between a terrorist leader and a criminal, is the terrorist leads an organization, which magnifies his intent, like Gadaffi and his army. And from this perspective, taking out the leader is again the best option, morally and practically.

Finally, it might not have been a pure assassination at all. It has been said that given the risk of him having a vest bomb to take some US troops with him (not so unlikely given the fact that he was prepared enough for an assault to have a 'getaway' robe with cash sewn into it) then the orders were to take no risks , and to kill him if 'he's not naked'. This I think would be completely justified, and a whole lot more responsible and just of the Americans than dropping a bomb from a B2 bomber.

So he's gone, and it was a good riddance. But of course we shouldn't rejoice about anyone being killed, just relieved he's gone. And just to be sure, once the initial debate has died down, let's keep him gone by denying him 'the oxygen of publicity' even in death, especially now he's under water.

society settling scores

So they got Osama. Think the only proper response is - about time. While killing him will make probably very little difference to world affairs, indeed in the short run might actually result in some retaliatory terrorist attacks, it needed to be done, and it was unbelievable it took so long.

Satisfaction on some form of justice having been done is definitely in order - but celebration? I guess in the US especially it's more a release of pent up frustration, and maybe an eruption of the a hope that maybe the new and dangerous world has been somehow put back in balance, but unfortunately this isn't the case; the world is as dangerous as it was before OBL met his demise, and if it is to change for the better, then the needed causes would have effect even if he was still around. Osama rode a wave of a certain type of feeling, and while he may have for a while acted as a focus for it's crystalization, it was always bigger than him - arising of it's own, and maybe even dissipating on it's own, neither raised nor subdued by any one man or group.

To celebrate is to be rejoice about something positive, something above the normal, but removing one mad dog from the world is not a plus, it is simply the cancelling of a minus, and it's a sad state of affairs if the only hope we can look forward to, is the removal of fear. It also isn't the most moral or ethical of reactions- since it shows the whole event is more about revenge, than justice. A society settling its scores rather than settling matters.

But while we shouldn't get carried away, either for practical or ethical reasons, the event still does count for something in both domains. Practically, it does show something that such a criminal is eventually hunted down, despite his connections and wealth. And ethically, while it has to be held in check, I think there is something telling about the need for revenge, the human drive for pure punishment, and not just justice. Rationally looked at, as long as Osama couldn't hurt anyone anymore, and his treatment served as an example to others, then we shouldn't really care what happens him, since the point of our rule of law is mainly to preserve and protect. And of course, a civilized society needs to make this the main pillar of our legal system. But to look at it just in these terms is to miss something. It overlooks the effect not on the culprit, or even on the victim, but on all those who are technically uninvolved, but still on the victim's side. For a moral society to work, these people, who might otherwise be 'disinterested' need to be made emotionally involved. And it is the desire for punishment, to inflict discomfort on those who violate the rules, that I think is the evolved mechanism which allows this involvment. It is of course based in a sense of righteousness, but coupled with a crucial desire for action, and this relies on triggering I think our most basic 'fight' response.

The problem of course is, this powerful and necessary fuel, needs to be kept in check, since otherwise can lead to the uncontrollable barbary of mob justice and vigilantism. And seeing people rejoice in crowds about the killing of another human being, while maybe necessary in this case as a release valve, and as an indicator of that retributive glue that can bind a society together, is somehow disconcerting. When passions are inflamed by the idea of justice, and revenge, then care is needed that things don't get out of hand.

So i have no problem with raising my glass to the death of such a cruel and insane individual, but only as a mark of respect to the forces for good that could put a stop to him. But celebrate? celebrate that there are such people in the world, even if now one less? Surely we've more to be glad of than that...