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.
No comments:
Post a Comment