Thoughts on the killing of bin Laden
... as expressed in my comment to mardeen
The world is a better place without him but I find the celebration twisted and disturbing. Celebrating killing is just wrong. I also have mixed feelings about the killing itself. I mean, doesn't due process and ethical behaviour toward others apply to everyone -- even bin Laden? They went into his house, shot him once in the head, once in the chest (a la Tony Soprano) and then dumped him in the ocean (a la Tony Soprano).
There is a really interesting article in the New Yorker that explores the legality of the action. It explores the "rules of engagement" that governm military behaviour in a way that most non-military people simply don't think about. There are actually rules about killing people in war situations that are fairly well defined. If someone is considered a "combatant" he can be killed anytime -- sitting at home in his underwear, eating dinner in a restaurant or whatever -- unless he actively makes an effort to surrender. So bin Laden didn't need to be armed or reven a threat to the soldiers for them to be able to kill him a la Soprano.
This may seem unusual to civilians because we are used to police situations, where a police officer has to justify shooting someone. Under war rules, no justification is necessary. Killing is the whole point. You can sneak up to someone in his sleep and shoot him for no other reason than he is a "bad guy", and killing bad guys is the reason you're walking around with a gun. You don't have to wake him up and take him prisoner. But if he does happen to wake up puts up his hands in surrender, you can no longer shoot him. So the lesson is -- sneak up very quietly.
The article goes on to conclude that there will likely be a formal exploration of the facts of the killing in the months ahead, and it will turn on whether bin Laden attempted to surrender and whether they could be reasonably certain that he was in fact bin Laden. The author points out that a lot of people will probably be disappointed in the narrowness of scope of this enquiry, but if so, then it is because they are uncomfortable with war itself, not with the legality of the killing.
The world is a better place without him but I find the celebration twisted and disturbing. Celebrating killing is just wrong. I also have mixed feelings about the killing itself. I mean, doesn't due process and ethical behaviour toward others apply to everyone -- even bin Laden? They went into his house, shot him once in the head, once in the chest (a la Tony Soprano) and then dumped him in the ocean (a la Tony Soprano).
There is a really interesting article in the New Yorker that explores the legality of the action. It explores the "rules of engagement" that governm military behaviour in a way that most non-military people simply don't think about. There are actually rules about killing people in war situations that are fairly well defined. If someone is considered a "combatant" he can be killed anytime -- sitting at home in his underwear, eating dinner in a restaurant or whatever -- unless he actively makes an effort to surrender. So bin Laden didn't need to be armed or reven a threat to the soldiers for them to be able to kill him a la Soprano.
This may seem unusual to civilians because we are used to police situations, where a police officer has to justify shooting someone. Under war rules, no justification is necessary. Killing is the whole point. You can sneak up to someone in his sleep and shoot him for no other reason than he is a "bad guy", and killing bad guys is the reason you're walking around with a gun. You don't have to wake him up and take him prisoner. But if he does happen to wake up puts up his hands in surrender, you can no longer shoot him. So the lesson is -- sneak up very quietly.
The article goes on to conclude that there will likely be a formal exploration of the facts of the killing in the months ahead, and it will turn on whether bin Laden attempted to surrender and whether they could be reasonably certain that he was in fact bin Laden. The author points out that a lot of people will probably be disappointed in the narrowness of scope of this enquiry, but if so, then it is because they are uncomfortable with war itself, not with the legality of the killing.