A Rebuttal To "The Osama Bin Laden Exception"

AP Photo

In an opinion piece in Salon.com entitled "The Osama Bin Laden Exception," columnist Glenn Greenwald argues that the US was wrong to kill Osama Bin Laden. He says that not only was it wrong, it was illegal.

In Greenwald's piece of May 9th, and in his subsequent appearance on NPR's "Talk Of The Nation," he says that US and international law prohibits the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and that he should have been brought to trial instead. His argument is that under international treaties and precedent, Bin Laden should have been given a trial and the US should have presented evidence of his guilt before passing sentence. As an example, he cites the war crimes trials of World War II, and the fact that we still have Khalid Sheikh Muhammad locked away in Guantanamo Bay - ostensibly awaiting trial.

Greenwald says that we are going against our own principles and our own sense of fairness and justice by executing Bin Laden without a fair trial in order to satisfy a thirst for revenge. He says that we would not feel the same if the situations were reversed; that is - we would not tolerate a foreign military operation on US soil designed to kill the President as a form of revenge for the deaths of thousands of people killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says that President Obama went against his own words by carrying out a military operation without notifying Pakistan first and giving them the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden.

Finally, Greenwald says that by taking this action, the US is setting a precedent: that we say that we are a nation of laws, but we will ignore those laws when it suits us. What's to stop us from assassinating ANYONE we deem a threat?

And technically, legally. . . he's right. But here's why he's wrong:

1. Assassinating a foreign head of state has been illegal since 1976, and the US has not assassinated any foreign heads of state since 1973
2. We did not assassinate a Pakistani citizen on Pakistani soil - we assassinated a known and wanted terrorist and fugitive, officially wanted by both the United States and Pakistan
3. A trial would have given Bin Laden and Al Quaeda the very publicity and notoriety they are looking for - giving them the chance to spread more of their message of hate and terror to more people
4. It would have legitimized Bin Laden and Al Quaeda
5. Executing Bin Laden and burying him at sea prevents believers from visiting his gravesite and enshrining him as a martyr

The war crimes trials in The Hague were prosecuting individuals who were part of a government sponsored war. Those trials were designed to show the world just how evil the Nazi regime was, and to bring to light the war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. Additionally, those people on trial were for the most part official representatives of their government.

Anyone on the planet with a radio, television or newspaper could see for themselves the terror, destruction and murder brought forth by Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Not only in the United States, but around the world. Al Quaeda claimed responsibility for their actions, boasted of the murder of civilians and encouraged others to do the same. They have convicted themselves by their own words and deeds.

Do our actions set a precedent? Do they "send a message?" Yes, they do: We ARE a nation of laws. We will defend your right to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say - but don't fuck with us or our allies or we'll hunt you down, pop two rounds of ammunition into your head and dump your sorry ass into the sea. It's basically the same message we've been sending out to the world since day 1 - only more up-to-date.