Hooray Anderson!
Anderson Cooper made several good comments in his nightly program, Anderson Cooper 360. I especially liked his reference to the burial at sea of Bin Laden's body: "The message it sends is that we are a country that does not drag the bodies of our enemies through the streets. We do not behead them for the entertainment of others. We do not mutilate their corpses." We still honored Islamic traditions of our mortal enemy and it shows that we uphold some moral higher ground. For this, I applaud the Whitehouse.
No photos?
A new development has been the decision by the Whitehouse to withhold the photos of bin Laden's body. Of course, there has been and will be debate over this decision as it is a very controversial decision. We did send in a team of Navy SEALs instead of bombing the compound with a drone. One of the virtues of a special forces operation was to make sure we were killing bin Laden by being able to identify the body. If we blew him up, then it would have been unlikely we would have been able to identify him.
Okay the argument goes that releasing graphic photos of his dead body will fuel hatred and incite more violence from terrorists. This may be true, but couldn't there also be the SAME active harm in not releasing the photo. Aren't the conspiracy theories and speculation more dangerous than any possible reality drawn from his death? They're going to worship their own fictional imagination of a man standing defiantly against their sworn enemy. Wouldn't it be destructive to their ideology to tell them their hero died swiftly and, most importantly without dignity?
We've countered the possible claims of disrespect toward Islam by burying him according to their traditions, so the worst case scenario is that we lose the extremists. If we don't provide substantial proof, then we lose the extremists AND some of the moderates. I am completely puzzled by this administration's rationale in handling the "proof" of bin Laden's death.
Maybe this is a stretch, but I find this concealing of evidence reminiscent of the "birther" controversy. Although I never personally doubted the President's citizenship, there were still people out there who wanted an unreasonable amount of proof dispelling speculation. I didn't need to see the birth certificate, but other people did. I would also add that propaganda has slightly more influence in the Middle East, so fanatical doubters are going to have a more eager and vast audience. So why are they using the logic that Islamic extremists are more rational than "birthers"?
I understand that for most people, just saying 'trust us' is enough; however, no amount of evidence will be satisfactory for some people. Will they release some DNA evidence? Are they planning to have the pictures deliberately "leaked" at some point to sidestep accusations of grandstanding?
Legalism
Also Attorney General Eric Holder has been saying (same Reuters article and said yesterday according to other sources) that the actions of the SEAL team in killing bin Laden were legal. The messages coming from the Whitehouse are still clinging to the idea that this was a "kill or capture" operation. If it was a "kill and capture" operation, then that violates international law, but until that is proven, I won't address it further than my last blog post did.
I want to first be clear: if the mission was "kill or capture", and if the SEAL team encountered a threat from bin Laden at the moment of his killing, then I fully support their right to kill him. If the eventuality comes to fruition which proves these two conditions true, then I support, and have no objections to the operation or its consequences.
For all I know, he may have had a bomb strapped to his chest, putting the lives of the whole SEAL team at risk. I would expect they have a no-tolerance rule for surprises and preempt any potential threat, and worry about legality later. In an intense situation like a firefight, it is probably better to err on the side of caution. Nonetheless, I am simply speculating in the case where "threatening moves" did not actually happen.
Holder has said, "If [bin Laden] had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate." Now, this is ridiculous in my eyes. Yes, if he had surrendered, minding international law, we shouldn't have killed him. But Holder is addressing the legality of US actions in the arrests of terrorists who do not surrender.
Let's examine the implications here: if an unarmed man presenting no threat and does not physically and verbally surrender, then the consequence is shooting him. The logic would then follow that anyone resisting arrest, by-and-large refusing to surrender, should also be shot and killed. I do have objections to this.
How many arrests do you think happen where the suspect goes willingly? I would guess a large amount of them refuse, but from what I understand that just means the enforcement agents are entitled to use force in order to capture them. Imagine a scenario where some Average Joe is suspected of some serious crime like rape or kidnapping. The police/FBI then go to arrest average Joe at his workplace and confront him in his office saying, "you are under arrest, please come with us," or something like that. Knowing he is probably going to prison for a long time, Joe refuses to leave his office and go with the policeman. He starts throwing stuff off his desk, hitting an officer with a stapler and yelling quite belligerently. So clearly he does not want to be taken into custody -- is the only option left to kill him?
NOW I know average Joe is amazingly different from the most wanted terrorist in the world and there are a myriad of other differences but this still paints a good picture in principle: all humans are entitled to basic human rights/freedoms such as due process and presumption of innocence. Additionally, we cannot expect other nations to abide by rules we insist on breaking. I know such freedoms can technically be suspended under looming Security Council resolutions and the Patriot Act in the US; however, denial of said freedoms have misdirected our moral compass.
Back to Holder's comment, he is presuming that by refusing to surrender, the only option the SEALs had to get him was to kill him. They couldn't knock him unconscious? They couldn't drag him out of that compound kicking and screaming? They couldn't even shoot out his knee caps, crippling him and rendering him a non-threat? The concepts behind "are you going to go quietly(?)" and arresting someone "the easy way or the hard way" were thrown out the door because the only acceptable answer was "yes I'll go quietly - I'm gonna make this easy for you".
What I learned from Holder: if you are ever told to "cease and desist" by law enforcement agents arresting you, then you better cooperate because the only remaining remedy is to end your life. I truly doubt that is what he meant and I hope he clarifies his position.
No comments:
Post a Comment