My goodness! An awful lot has happened since April 8, my last blog, but it was really that April 30 - May 2 long weekend that did the trick. That 72 hour period saw the demise of Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe, and Osama bin Ladin, and the rise of Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. Well, you can’t have everything, but I think, all in all, most would say it was a pretty good weekend. Of course, some might be insulted that I’ve lumped the demise of Ignatieff and Duceppe in with that of bin Ladin, but those al-Qaeda folks complain about everything. Who cares what they think?
And I might as well admit right off the top, I do believe bin Ladin is dead. The US government says he is, and al-Qaeda has confirmed it. Admittedly, both these organizations have lied to us in the past, but not usually about the same thing in the same way. There is, of course, the bit about the body they dumped in the ocean, the picture they won’t show us, the DNA evidence that only a half dozen people can vouch for, and the fact that only a half dozen people can actually claim to have been there when they killed him. Well, I still think he’s dead.
There are people who don’t believe it. One guy on a phone-in show said he’d buy it when they produced the death certificate, but then backtracked pondering whether it might be created by the same people who created Obama’s birth certificate. Perhaps it was Donald Trump, but I don’t think we should pay any more attention to him till he comes clean about what’s happening to his hair.
And, on a more serious note, I do think it’s interesting that there seems to be a tacit admission by the Americans that this was a kill, not a capture mission. It’s understandable if it was, of course. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine that it wasn’t. But that does make it an assassination, raising the spectre of the CIA’s worst historical practices. And it’s a violation of both International and American law. This is a bad thing. And, if he was captured and murdered, it’s a war crime.
Now, it’s not that I want a fair trial for bin Ladin. I want a fair trial for me, and much more, for all the people he and his friends terrorized and murdered over the years, for the families of his victims, and even for those who were sympathetic to his cause.
Trials, with all their limitations, have a way of bringing to light things we could never otherwise know. And it’s a shame that such a dark figure, and such a dark period, should end shrouded in the obscurity of a covert military operation. The rule of law is a hindrance to the great powers of the world, and a protection for the little folk. We’re all little folk, and we deserve more than a confused account of what happened, even if it comes from “the good guys”.
I’ll leave my comments on the federal election for my next blog. Right now I’d like to hear your response to this bin Ladin affair.
Do you think it matters that he’s gone?
Do you believe the story the Americans tell of his demise?
Do you believe it matters that there will be no trial?
Have you felt safer in May than you did in April?
4 comments:
Dan,
Great to see you back in the blogosphere! You've been missed.
Interesting thoughts on the Bin Laden. His death has bothered me quite a bit, but up until now, I didn't understand why. I know I don't feel the joyful exuberance like the US citizens displayed in front of the White House did the night it was announced. I do feel a bit relieved - like we can finally close the chapter on the 9/11 saga.
But after reading your blog, I think I know the reason why this bothered me so much: this was a murder! Sure, he orchestrated 9/11 - but did this give the US the right to assassinate this man?
I hope that now that Bin Laden is dead, the US can now reflect on what it has done (and the ideals it has sacrificed) over the last 10 years in the pursuit of this guy and its war on terror. Was it worth it?
I know I certainly don't feel safer with Bin Laden dead. At best, it's a wash. On one hand, Bin Laden can't get me anymore - so that's made me feel safer. But now that I know that the US spooks can get away with murder - literally - without the rule of law coming into play...well, that's just a little bit unnerving.
I just hope that short balding Christian Canadian accountants don't make it on to the CIA hit list any time soon.
Thanks, Danny, it's great to be back.
There's a good argument for just killing bin Laden in this situation of course. If they had captured him there surely would have been terrorist threats to secure his release, and giving him a platform to speak to the world seems questionable. But the threats and rhetoric are constant anyway.
The downside to acting outside the law is that it becomes harder to define a "rogue" state. Eventually we all get so we can't tell the bad guys from the good guys. And though people talk of "fighting fire with fire", the truth is firefighters usually fight fire with water because it's more effective and safer.
There are an awful lot of people who don't believe the American version of 911, all the way from, "I just don't think that's the whole story" to "the Americans did it to create an opportunity to attack Iraq". Covert military operations give credence to crazy conspiracy theories. Can't help wondering if there's anything these folks won't do.
I'm curious to know what you think of the possibility that it was a kill rather than a capture because of what might be learned from a trial.
Yes, Mary, I do. Not that I necessarily believe there is some great, dark conspiracy. I had a friend who was a military man and very much a hawk, but even he used to talk ruefully about "the military mind". In sociological terms the military is what is called a "total institution". One characteristic of such entities is an us/them mentality. (We know lots of things that outsiders shouldn't know, and wouldn't understand. It's really best for everyone if it remains that way.) One of the great challenges of democracy is the battle for openness and public awareness, i.e., the Pentagon Papers in the States and the Afghan detainee situation here in Canada.
Post a Comment