Rich Lowry asks the question:
In an ideal world, the Navy SEALs would have been given the order to take bin Laden alive, if possible. He would have been taken to a secret location for interrogation and waterboarded if necessary to break him quickly. Every possible lead would have been wrung from him and hunted down. When he was no longer of use, he’d have been put before a military commission and executed.
In other words, he should have been handled in the same way the Bush administration planned to treat detainees in the first urgent days of the War on Terror. Of course, the Obama administration deems coercive interrogation un-American, and the military commissions — partly because of the administration’s hostility — are a shambles. There remained only one good option for bin Laden: a bullet in the eye.
Perhaps killing bin Laden, a potent symbol, was the best outcome regardless. The suddenness and finality of it may prove a devastating blow to al-Qaeda’s morale and prestige. But targeted killing shouldn’t be the only tool in our arsenal.
I find it bizarre that the same administration that thinks that illegal combatants should be mirandized has no compunction about extrajudicial assassination of them, whether with drones or SEALs.
[Update a while later]
“The SEALs had to kill bin Laden to keep him out of the hands of Eric Holder.”
As a reminder, here’s the Hall of Shame — Republicans who voted to confirm him:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-Ga)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Sessions (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
I have a better theory. If Bin Laden had been taken alive and tried in public, he might have exposed how the USA has been utterly duped by the Pakis.
It would have been extremely embarassing to the entire intelligence apparatus in the US and to Central Command. It might have caused the public to seriously question the MO of the War on Terror thus far. People might realize that hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives were utterly wasted fighting an ineffectual and impotent enemy whose commander obtained succor from our central ally in the region.
The best reason I’ve heard so far for killing and not capturing OBL was that the news would be sure to get out (even if the administration hadn’t blabbed) and it probably would’ve lead to a spate of worldwide kidnapping of Americans.
I find it bizarre that the same administration that thinks that illegal combatants should be mirandized has no compunction about extrajudicial assassination of them, whether with drones or SEALs.
Consistency is not a political virtue.
“If Bin Laden had been taken alive and tried in public, he might have exposed how the USA has been utterly duped by the Pakis.”
I think the cat’s out of the bag on that one either way. We already know that the Pakis are funding and supporting the Taliban efforts in Afghanistan (e.g., killing our troops via sock puppet), that they harbored Osama Bin Laden for at least five years (possibly longer), and that A. Q. Khan is the guy who gave North Korea and Iran their nuclear programs.
Just what else could they possibly be guilty of?
“it probably would’ve lead to a spate of worldwide kidnapping of Americans.”
That’s actually not a bad reason. Personally I think though that they just didn’t want to walk back their waterboarding and military trial positions on such a high-profile captive. They can waterboard al Qaeda’s street-level operatives all day long and no one cares; but waterboarding OBL would get the New York Times’ editorial page in a serious hissy fit.
…extrajudicial…
This word has been popping up on several different blogs I’ve visited in the last few days. What does it signify to you? Nothing personal, I just wonder if the folks who use it are imagining something like the FISA court issuing death warrants, or whether Presidential war decisions should be reviewable by the civil judiciary… it would be paradoxical if the military judiciary, which serves at the pleasure of the President, were granted the power to second-guess the Commander-in-Chief. Would the signing of a death warrant require public notice and a 30-day response? Could bin Laden appeal and gain an injunction or reversal? After all, isn’t it a basic principle of the judiciary that all sides deserve their day in court?
Or does one imagine that Congress has the power to forbid the President in time of war from dispatching troops on missions that might harm or kill specific persons? Traditionally, of course, Congress gets to declare war and the President gets to be Commander-in-Chief, and I’m not educated enough to think of examples where Congress or the Judiciary reviewed specific operational decisions. (Lately, Congress has been in the mood merely to “authorize the use of military force” (AUMF) instead of declare war, perhaps in reaction to the rise of non-state actors like al Qaeda, perhaps in part as recognition of the necessity to act in broad coalitions.)
For that matter, couldn’t Congress explicitly include in the authorization to use military force a blanket authorization to kill the leader(s) of the enemy forces? Doesn’t it already include that implicitly? Do you imagine there is a legal difference between dropping a missile on the bin Laden mansion and sending in a Seal Team with broad discretion to kill him if any resistance is encountered — or with explicit orders to kill?
Believe me, I understand the reluctance to grant Obama the power of life and death. But… too late! He’s President and that makes him Commander-in-Chief. If he ordered the military to kill Sarah Palin, the way our checks and balances work, the best we could do is impeach him before handing him over to the criminal justice system (the place Nixon was headed when Ford pardoned him). I don’t think the judiciary could review that decision as a military decision of a sitting President.
They can waterboard al Qaeda’s street-level operatives all day long and no one cares; but waterboarding OBL would get the New York Times’ editorial page in a serious hissy fit.
Perhaps the larger risk, from their perspective, is that without the waterboard they have stigmatized they might not “break” bin Laden. He would emerge laughing every day from interrogation using “other 9” techniques authorized by the Yoo memos — the lapel grab, the wall push, even the dreaded caterpillar torture — and his “strong horse” stature would grow by leaps and bounds among his disciples in the religion of peace(TM). And in the meantime, the sale of Bush “Miss Me Yet?” t-shirts would skyrocket.
If he ordered the military to kill Sarah Palin, the way our checks and balances work, the best we could do is impeach him before handing him over to the criminal justice system (the place Nixon was headed when Ford pardoned him).
Actually, I suspect that the order wouldn’t be obeyed, though I suppose he might find at least one person to do it.
But in theory, yes, he could sit on the lawn of the White House and plink at tourists (or protesters) in Lafayette Park, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it, short of impeaching and removing him. Despite all the nonsense about sex and BJs, that is why Bill Clinton was impeached — because he clearly considered himself above the law, and was willing to subvert it for his own selfish ends.
What Brian D said is the rational I always heard for not taking OBL alive. It would have prompted others to take their own hostages to try and barter to get OBL back. Indeed, that’s a better reason than muslim sensibility for disposing of the body quickly.
Actually, the SEAL yelled “You have the right to remain silent!” just before pulling the trigger…
I think the mission to take out bin Laden was “extrajudicial” for precisely one reason and one reason only: it was a military mission and not a law-enforcement mission. What’s out of place is the idea this is a bad thing.
One of the reasons politics used to stop at the shoreline was it was universally understood that laws and courts operated solely within the borders of the nation-state that enacted them. Outside that jurisdiction you were either subject to alien laws over which you had no control, or you were engaged in warfare. And in time of war you either supported your country or you were committing treason.
Even the so-called “laws of war” were dependent entirely on the often-fictional assumption of reciprocity. There was no impartial institution that could claim to adjudicate any dispute; you fought, and if you lost your only appeal was if the winner left you capable of a rematch — but if he went all Cartago delenda est on you, you were SOL.
The idea that a brigand and saboteur like Osama bin Laden could be entitled to due process, is a new concept and I’m not at all sure it bodes well. Civilization has always worked best when it had boundaries beyond which it could throw out the rule book and just kick ass.
The rules we should be operating under are the piracy rules.
No sovereign state grants him the right of citizenship -> he’s a pirate. If somewhere wants to grant him citizenship -> well, that’s where you get the war with Afghanistan.
This goes for ‘the American Taliban’ and fellow travellers as well: they’ve renounced their citizenship. If you need to convene a three Judge panel to convince the lawyers that this is so, then do so. But ‘fighting for/swearing allegiance to a foreign military’ is a slam dunk case even with we’re talking about a friendly military.
Actually, I suspect that the order wouldn’t be obeyed
I sure hope so. As I recall the indoctrination, soldiers have an affirmative duty to disobey illegal orders. The question is always whether they feel sufficiently competent to make that judgment, at great personal risk. Surely someone in the chain of command would intervene before it got to the guys with the guns. But my point as a hypothetical is that AIUI there is not much precedent in the way of judicial second-guessing of military operational decisions made at that level.
For enlisted people, orders which are known or believed to be illegal, immoral, or wrong are not considered lawful. Officers, however, can give DIRECT orders which must be obeyed. You are allowed to protest the order, stating your reasons for believing the order to be illegal etc. If the order is repeated, you must obey or face the consequences.
If you obey the illegal order under protest, you are to immediately report the incident to the next higher authority in your chain of command. Full stop. Your responsibility ends there. You still get to face the music…
Nothing personal, I just wonder if the folks who use it are imagining something like the FISA court issuing death warrants, or whether Presidential war decisions should be reviewable by the civil judiciary…
At least for me, yes. In other words, a court is involved either with approving the assassination or reviewing it as a routine part of the process.