Even if we were justified in using force to kill Osama bin Laden and his death brings a sense of “closure” to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, his death has not broken the cycle of violence. We have already seen that 80 people in Pakistan have been killed as an act of “revenge” for bin Laden’s death. Will someone avenge those 80 deaths, too? And then who will avenge the avengers? Will anyone be marked as Cain so that he may not be killed in revenge?
As has been so often said, the Christian duty to love is not a feeling, but can be understood as an act of fulfilling our responsibilities to God and our neighbor. Augustine believed that taking someone’s life to defend the innocent in order to preserve a “provisional and earthly peace” could be understood as a paradoxical act of love. But he also understood these responsibilities of political authority to be a tragic necessity, borne from the responsibility that comes with trying to preserve a common life in the face of evil.
Those who render this provisional and earthly judgment, Augustine says, do so “with tears,” knowing that the death of one’s fellows can never be something to celebrate. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live” (Ezek. 33:11).
No disagreement, but there also is room in Scripture for celebrating the death of the Goliaths in the world–not for some petty personal vengeance on our part, but because of all they represent, all they have done, and all they are set to do. Further, while God does not “delight” in the death of the wicked, vengeance [i]is[/i] His. Let’s not excise that truth from Scripture.
[blockquote] “We should want an account of why the United States, as opposed to anyone else, understood itself as having the authority to carry out that mission.” [/blockquote]
Hmmm, the right to defend yourself against attacks that kill thousands of people and totally disrupt your airline system, I suspect.
[blockquote] “And, perhaps most importantly, we should want an account of bin Laden’s legal status: Was he a combatant, an unlawful combatant, or a criminal?” [/blockquote]
If this is meant to be a reference to the Geneva Conventions, then it is misconceived. They deal with the treatment to be accorded to various categories of persons on capture. Two of the categories are “privileged combatants” and “unprivileged combatants”. As an unprivileged combatant, OBL would still have been entitled to certain minimums of treatment on capture.
But this is irrelevant. He was not captured, and no-one has suggested that he attempted to surrender (I would be very surprised if he did).
Nations are entitled to fire ordnance at people who attack them, under international law. They don’t have to give a call for surrender first, particularly in circumstances where the target person: (a) leads an organisation that has carried out an act of war against them; (b) has declared his intention of doing something similar again; (c) will certainly go into hiding again if not neutralised at the first available opportunity.
This is quite a different situation to torture of prisoners, which the author alludes to in a couple of places.
[blockquote] (In 1981 President Ronald Regan issued Executive Order 12333, which expressly forbids any member of the U.S. government to take part in assassination attempts [part 2.1]. Apparently, however, this executive order was reinterpreted in 1998 regarding terrorists.) [/blockquote]
That is an internal matter for citizens of the US, of which I am not one. However, I would have thought that if a President can issue such an order, the same or another President can also un-issue it or modify it. One would think that the purpose of having a President is so that he can modify such rules of engagement to fit changing circumstances.
But there is nothing in international law that I can think of that prevents the United States from using military force against members of an organisation which has carried out an act of war against it, and which has declared the intention of carrying out more.
[blockquote] “We cannot sacrifice our legal and moral principles in the face of enemies who do not share them — otherwise we become just like those we are trying to defeat.” [/blockquote]
I agree. That doesn’t mean you can’t kill them, depending on the circumstances.
[blockquote] “When I watched the live coverage of U.S. citizens’ jubilant reactions at the White House and Times Square and learned of the celebrations at U.S. military installations I felt that something terribly wrong was taking place.” [/blockquote]
That may well be the case, but it is a different issue to whether the US had the legal right to kill Bin Laden. I would argue that it clearly did.
[blockquote] “It is highly unlikely that any of us would have invited bin Laden in for dinner if he had showed up at our door.” [/blockquote]
I believe he was actually a fairly pleasant man, to those that knew him personally. So was Hermann Goering.
[blockquote] “Those who render this provisional and earthly judgment, Augustine says, do so “with tears,†knowing that the death of one’s fellows can never be something to celebrate. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live†(Ezek. 33:11).” [/blockquote]
I agree. I stand condemned as a sinner before my God, no less than OBL. If I stand before Him, it is only due to One that is righteous paying the price, a gift that I in no way deserved. But we mustn’t conflate that with mistakes about the nature of international obligations.