Dispiriting

[poliphilo]

Actually, I find it a bit dispiriting when the President comes on TV and says "I just had this guy killed" and there's dancing in the streets and the President's chances of re-election rocket.

Was it really out of the question to arrest Bin Laden? Did he have a gun in his hand when he was shot?

And why was the body dumped so quickly? What was there about it they didn't want us to see? I've read the wounds were in the back of the head, but I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure.

 

Wouldn't it have been better to have put him on trial? Who does it serve that Bin Laden never gets to tell his story?

 

Geoffrey Robertson in the Independent (I'd link but LJ won't let me this morning) reminds us of an important fact about the Nuremberg trials. Apparently the Brits wanted to string up the nazi leaders within six hours of capture and it was President Truman who insisted on due process of law, because lynching the bastards "would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride."

 

I don't really buy all that greatest generation guff, but it's sobering to remember there was once a time when a US President believed his public would appreciate him acting like a civilised man and not some fucking cowboy. 

Comments

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends on whether you view Bin Laden's acts as crimes (like someone committing a murder) or warfare.

He may not represent a specific country, but I would argue he *did* declare war on the U.S. And the goal of warfare is killing. Not trial by jury. When someone declares war on you, then yes, you have every right to kill them in order to protect your people.

I can't bring myself to joyously celebrate another human being's death, but I can't say I'm overly grief-stricken about Bin Laden's demise, either. I'm not fond of much of the my country's foreign policy, and I do get why so many people hate us. But killing thousands of civilians isn't the way to make your point. He lost his right to have his side of the story heard when he did that. Which isn't the point of a trial, anyway, of course.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think it was a mistake from the outset to pursue the campaign against Al Quaeda as a "war". They aren't a nation, they're a criminal organisation and should have been hunted down as such. Giving them a "war" glorified them.

But politicians like wars- and so, for some reason- do electorates.