While US attorney general Eric Holder is arguing that this was ‘not an assassination’, only the credulous will be convinced that this was anything else other than a hit.

Not so. Had the intention been to kill Bin Laden, this could have been achieved with far less risk to US personnel by:

a. an airstrike
b. Predator strike
c. Placing a large bomb at the compound.

As it was, US Navy Seals assaulted the building at considerable risk to themselves. The official account is that they were under orders to arrest Bin Laden if possible, but were given licence to shoot if they considered their own lives or the success of the mission was imperiled.

I see no reason to disbelieve that. Bin Laden alive would have guaranteed the complete rolling up of al Qaeda. Bin Laden dead brings out all the conspiracy fruitcakes. Who needs it?

OBL may not have had a gun in his hand the moment he was shot – but there were two in the room with him – an AK47 and a pistol – presumably there for just this sort of eventuality.

It’s not that David Miliband had much of a problem with Israel bumping off dodgy Palestinians or anything. But travelling on false UK passports was judged a step too far.

It’s always impossible to provide proof on such matters, but it remains a reasonable surmise that the Russian government had a hand in poisoning Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210. There is ample evidence that Syria did for Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. …

Those who disapprove of such practices have no alternative but to disapprove of their latest instantiation.

Why? In what sense are Litvinenko and Hariri similar to bin Laden? Did they declare war on any country or cause / influence thousands to be killed?

I don’t recall expressions of international outrage when Gerald Bull, a Canadian engineer who designed superguns, was assassinated outside his apartment in Brussels in 1990, reputedly by Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull

Why so? Try this on the Mossad assassinations apparatus:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine26.html

I was under the distinct impression that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda had declared war on the US.

@3

Um, Bob, I’m not so sure that it’s wise to link to an anti-Semitic holocaust-denial website when providing “proofs” of your claims… *rolleyes*

@ 3 Bob B

“I don’t recall expressions of international outrage when Gerald Bull, a Canadian engineer who designed superguns, was assassinated outside his apartment in Brussels in 1990, reputedly by Mossad.”

This is going out on a limb, you understand, but I reckon Bin Laden was probably a little more famous and of interest to the global press that a Canadian weapons designer.

@4: “Um, Bob, I’m not so sure that it’s wise to link to an anti-Semitic holocaust-denial website when providing “proofs” of your claims… *rolleyes*”

I must confess that I was completely unaware that Wikipedia was dedicated to the promotion of antisemitism – but haven’t we debated at length before the issue of whether any and all criticism relating to Israel is “antsemitic”?

As I recall, no one has yet been brought to trial for the assassination of Gerald Bull. As for the Mossad link, I could have posted this link but presumably CBC, in implying criticism of Mossad, is bound to be antisemitic too:
http://controversy.videosift.com/video/CBC-News-Gerald-Bull-Assassinated-by-Israeli-Mossad

I guess Jews for Justice for Palestinians are also antisemitic: http://jfjfp.com/

@5: “This is going out on a limb, you understand, but I reckon Bin Laden was probably a little more famous and of interest to the global press that a Canadian weapons designer.”

I see, we have reverted to: All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html

Israeli assassinations = good : US assassinations = bad

Broadly agree with the article, though I’m not 100% sure that it was intended to be assassination from the start of the op. I’ve heard some very dodgy arguments as to why it’d be alright though if it was, mainly revolving around the cost of imprisonment and trial.

@6

I was referring, as you well know, to your linking of http://www.revisionisthistory.org/ . If you think that site equates to legitimate criticism of Israel then there is something deeply wrong with your moral compass.

@ 6 Bob B

“I see, we have reverted to: All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html

Israeli assassinations = good : US assassinations = bad”

Bob, you don’t have to give me a link to Animal Farm, not even when you misapply two of the quotes from it.

Bin Laden was one of the most famous people in the world, which is why his death was ubiqitously reported and thus widely commented on. How exactly do you jump from that to accusing me of being in favour of Israeli assassinations?

Next time you comment, try to think about what you’re saying first. It’ll come out a little more relevant and a little less offensive.

@8

All sorts of people have been dubbed “revisionist historians”, inluding Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

We’ve previously discussed Avi Shlaim and his book: The Iron Wall (Penguin, 2001) on the origins and development of the Palestine conflict.

Why not focus on the issues in debate instead of trying to dub any criticism or critics of Israel and its formidable military as antisemitic?

There was an interesting discussion on the radio a few days ago – I’m afraid I don’t recall the programme – with a guy who was a US army sergeant involved in gathering evidence at the death camps for use in the Nuremberg trials.

He felt, I think as I do, that capture and a trial, with all its attendant risks would have been a better outcome.

At the same time he did not condemn those inmates who, when liberated, lynched as many of their former guards/executioners as they were able to get hold of before more general order was restored.

(Capture and trial of OBL I mean, in case that wasn’t clear)

@ 1 Flowerpower “Not so. Had the intention been to kill Bin Laden, this could have been achieved with far less risk to US personnel by:
a. an airstrike
b. Predator strike
c. Placing a large bomb at the compound.”

Not so again. Obama very clearly ruled out this argument on Day 1, stating he’d dropped those options only and reluctantly because he didn’t want a pile of rubble that might or might not have had Bin Laden’s body under it.

@ 10 Bob B

“Why not focus on the issues in debate instead of trying to dub any criticism or critics of Israel and its formidable military as antisemitic?”

That’s a laugh, coming from Mr “people who point out the flaw in my argument are pro-assassination bigots”.

@11: “He felt, I think as I do, that capture and a trial, with all its attendant risks would have been a better outcome. ”

In a rational world and in circumstances where the raiding US Seals team on 1 May didn’t feel threatened – not least from the possibility of a counter-act by the Pakistan military based in the academy nearby – that might be so but I suspect a trial would have led to hostage taking and all sorts of endless argument about the validity of evidence when Osama Bin Laden did issue publicity tapes personally claiming the credit for the 9/11 attacks, which resulted in the killing of nearly 3,000 people.

There wasn’t snything like a comparable outcry over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

There are those who advocate a legal framework for state sanctioned torture in a so called “ticking bomb” scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpWTqz66jWY

At the heart of this idea is a reluctant acknowledgement that decisions about torture (or killing) are too important to be made behind closed doors as some have argued following OBL’s death.

Dershowitz proposes a mechanism so that the state would be required to convince the legal system that certain extreme forms of action are indeed in the wider interest – otherwise torture and killing WILL almost certainly continue (as much as we may resent the fact) while decisions about who to torture or kill will remain in the hands of those who may prefer to continue to act in secret?

@10

Aaaaaaaargh. You quoted the site of a holocaust-denier. I pulled you up on that. Stop changing the subject and simply apologise & admit that you are in the wrong on this one Bob.

I’m as critical of Israel’s policies as much as the next chap but using antisemitic sources to back up your arguments does nothing to further them. You may as well be quoting the Protocals of the Elders of Zion.

Not one’s going to comment on the funniness of quoting David Shayler?

Via wikipedia:

“In an article in the Daily Mail Shayler claimed that he was the son of God stating, “I am the messiah and hold the secret of eternal life,” and that he was the reincarnation of various historical figures.[19] This claim is echoed on his official website where he notes that “David Michael Shayler — ‘Sheylr’ in Hebrew … was anointed Messiah on 2 July 2007 and proclaimed on 07.07.07, in line with ancient prophecies.”[20] He also claims to have divine powers which allow him to influence the weather, prevent terror attacks and predict football scores.[21]“

@16 – Spot on. Bobbitt nuances on Dershowitz’s suggestion. Bobbitt takes the view that under law – torture must be illegal. BUt in saying that he accepts that in the very rare circumstances of true ticking bomb situations – the law would be ignored – torture would happen and those that ordered it and carried it out would have to face trial… but it would be suspected that they would not be convicted as the jury would ‘nullify’ the charge.

That he rightly points out is the easy part. The difficult point is where there are situations where there is no clear ticking bomb. He makes a good argument for disallowing all forms of torture lite (although waterboarding is still full torture in his view) for evidentary, punitive and end – but accepts that it may be neccessary for tactical ends. In such a circumstance he agrees that is must be done within a legal framework – but he differs from Dershowitz in his view that officials/politicians/judiciary will always err on the side of enhanced interrogation. So rather than presenting evidence ot a judge, evidence should be presented to a randomly selected jury.

It is well worth getting Bobbitt’s book just for this Chapter, the nuance and historical context he provides – together with his esimation of the type of conflict we are now engaged with against “terror” (not just Islamists) is too insighful to pass up.

On the subject of Libya, he was interviewed a few days ago… the discussion of Libya is towards the end – but it’s 30mins well spent if you’ve not read the book. The interview discusses his torture views as well:
http://www.logicconsortium.org/bobbitt2.mp3

I’m not in agreement iwth this moral eqivilance that is being put around re Bin Laden’s death. Chomsky wrote a ridiculous piece comparing it to to an Islamist coming in to the Whitehouse and killing Obama or something along those lines. If you can’t see the difference between employing violence to stop violence (the USA against Bin Laden) and employing violence to dissuade people from engaging in lawful activity under a liberal democratic system (Bin Laden against the West) then you need to wake up imo.

There are those who advocate a legal framework for state sanctioned torture in a so called “ticking bomb” scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpWTqz66jWY

The ticking time bomb scenario torture warrant is brilliantly self-paradoxical.

@17: “Aaaaaaaargh. You quoted the site of a holocaust-denier”

So what? He likely also believes that 2 + 2 = 4. Does that mean we must immediately change all the cash tills at supermarket checkouts?

Why not focus on the issues in debate instead of whether X or Y is an antisemite because they’ve said something critical about Israel?

The question is whether Israeli orchestrated assassinations are acceptable whereas others aren’t.

Try this for even more virulent “antisemitism” – the report in 2000 by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), based in the US, on its visit to Israeli occupied territories in Palestine to assess the suppression of demonstrations:

“The PHR team found that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has used live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather than solely in self-defense. . . ”
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-useofforce-israel.pdf

I guess the current regime in Syria found that inspiring.

Broadly agree with the OP about the morality of assassination but not convinced that was the sole aim of those involved here – but conspiracy offers more consolation to True Believers than the idea that taking alive someone who revels in martyrdom might not be as easy on the ground as playing Tour of Duty would have you believe.

I must agree that the sight of Americans revelling in Bin Laden’s death wasn’t in good taste but the Facebook meme calling for ostentatious displays of ‘compassion’ for the death of one man were far more obnoxious: Oh, look at me! I weep tears of blood for even the worst of my enemies! Please feel free to dip your finger in my stigmata!

@Bob b

The question is whether Israeli orchestrated assassinations are acceptable whereas others aren’t.

Is it now? Is it really?
Given that Israeli orchestrated assassinations are highlighted in the OP, and lumped in with all the others.

I’ve never really been clear on why assassination is such a no-no.

Machine-gunning your way through thousands of hapless conscripts is a legitimate tactic of war, but sending in a sniper to take out the one guy you actually want dead is some apparently terrible crime.

I’m open to persuasion, but I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that the various injuctions against assassinating political leaders are due at least in part to the fact that they were drafted and signed by political leaders. If they’d had been written by rank and file soldiers, they might have come out a little differently.

24
Agreed, and it can possibly be justified by a utilitarian approach, certainly by the ‘do as little harm as possible’ approach.

@24 Depends whether the choice is really between Assassination or war.

@23: “Is it now? Is it really?”

Try the link @21 to the report of the Physicians for Human Rights in 2000 on the methods used by the IDF to suppress youthful rock-throwing demonstrators in the intifada.

The visiting physicians found that a disproportionate number of demonstrators had been shot in the head. In other words, the IDF was using mass assassination as a means for policing the intifada.

I’m sure the present regime in Syria was greatly impressed by this means of policing demonstrations.

“But there are, of course, legitimate questions to be asked….While US attorney general Eric Holder is arguing that this was ‘not an assassination’, only the credulous will be convinced that this was anything else other than a hit. After all, states take out people all the time.”

Pathetic, anti-western, ‘moral equivalence’ propaganda in the OP!

OBL was an enemy commander; and he never saw himself as less. So, in just war theory (which is the basis of the Geneva Convention, etc), he was a legitimate target — decapitation, as the military jargon goes.

End of story. No liberal handwringing necessary.

the Facebook meme calling for ostentatious displays of ‘compassion’ for the death of one man were far more obnoxious: Oh, look at me! I weep tears of blood for even the worst of my enemies! Please feel free to dip your finger in my stigmata!

There was also an interesting cross-over of people who were arguing at the start of the week that no-one’s death should be celebrated, but by the end of the week were gleefully dancing on Mrs Thatcher’s anticipated grave.

Machine-gunning your way through thousands of hapless conscripts is a legitimate tactic of war, but sending in a sniper to take out the one guy you actually want dead is some apparently terrible crime.

As far as I’m aware, assassination of the opposing leadership in a formally-declared war is perfectly acceptable. It’s assassinating people you believe to be influential non-state actors, or leaders of countries you haven’t actually declared war against, that’s generally felt to be a bit iffy. Where, exactly, is the line between “assassination”, “extra-judicial execution”, and plain old “murder” in such cases?

“End of story. No liberal handwringing necessary.”

Just a mo’, I’ve not detected handwringing by most Democrats in the US or by members of the Obama administration there.

“It’s assassinating people you believe to be influential non-state actors, or leaders of countries you haven’t actually declared war against, that’s generally felt to be a bit iffy”

C’mon. In a long series of publicity videos released by al-Qaeda over the last decade, Osama Bin Laden had made it crystal clear that he had effectively declared war on the US and claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks. There’s little scope for rational doubt about this as he was effectively boasting about how effective the 9/11 attacks had been.

C’mon. In a long series of publicity videos released by al-Qaeda over the last decade, Osama Bin Laden had made it crystal clear that he had effectively declared war on the US and claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks.

Certainly. I’m not arguing against that, and I’m definitely not shedding any tears for OBL. I was merely trying to clarify the general opposition to assassination (in response to a specific question from Larry @24), rather than say anything about this specific case.

For the sake of clarity: I don’t have a problem with this particular assassination. He certainly did go a very long way out of his way to invite it. I’d have ideally preferred that he be captured and put on trial, and failing that, I’d have preferred less collateral damage, but even on that score, this particular assassination isn’t by any means the worst. It’s certainly nothing like hitting a tower block with a Hellfire missile.

But target killings breach the principle of respect for human life.

Where does this ”principle” come from? Who’s is it? It’s a minority one in the world generally I would say. And it is no morally better than those people who would raise a glass in cheer at the news of OBL’s assassination.
His life had no value. None. So it was no big deal to top him.

”This pity for bin Laden is just pacifist-nihilism”
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10509/

[30] “Where, exactly, is the line between “assassination”, “extra-judicial execution”, and plain old “murder” in such cases” – and who do we want to decide – the judges or the generals?

But let’s assume OBL was captured, then convicted – holding such a high profile figure in a western jail would not have been without consequences?

How long before a senior western counterpart (or celebrity perhaps) was kidnapped then threatened with beheading on ‘youtube’ unless OBL was handed back?

30
The utilitarian view is based on consequentialism, therefore, the label isn’t important. A&E@34 is correct, in order to maximise pleasure or minimize pain, the action taken probably fulfilled that criteria. Imo, there is no doubt that if OBL was taken alive there would have been dire consequences for many more innocent people.

@30 – You are stuck in the nation-state paradigm of war making. In the past, non-state actors have not been empowered enough to wage serious war on states. In the present day, and even more so in the future – war is likely to have at least one non-state actor as a participant. Would you accept this? And if so, would you accept that the traditionally held framework is unsuitable for dealing with such circumstances.

As for “exactly” where that line is – that is a tough question, but acceptance that there is a line is progress of a kind. My feeling is that it would have to be something derived from a utilitarian assesment of the consequences of action/inaction with reference to the alternatives and to what exten such action would run contrary to the normal non-war workings of the state.

@36: “You are stuck in the nation-state paradigm of war making. In the past, non-state actors have not been empowered enough to wage serious war on states. In the present day, and even more so in the future – war is likely to have at least one non-state actor as a participant. ”

Readers may be interested in this early illuminating analysis of the evolution of Fourth Generation Warfare (or asymmetric warfare) by William Lind:
http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702

“Fourth Generation Warfare” has become something of a buzz term so googling on it will retrieve lots of papers and articles, many of a later vintage than William Lind’s piece.

The idea of Fourth Generation War (4GW) is essential knowledge I think if you want to understand the nature of conflict in the current world. There is a great article by Thomas X Hammes – The Evoltuion of War: The Fourth Generation which talks about how war has been practiced historically and how what is thought of as 4GW has slowly envolved out of various insurgent movements – pdf of the article:
http://dde.carlisle.army.mil/documents/courses_09/readings/2200_hammes.pdf

Again, I’m like a stuck record directing people to Bobbitt, but he’s managed to integrate the most meaningful aspects of 4GW into the current circumstances.

War as most people think of it doesn’t exist any longer.

“The British state has had a hand in ‘targeted killings’ – to use the accepted euphemism – in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Former MI5 officer David Shayler claims British involvement in a plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, for instance.”

Shayler is not a reliable source. I mean come on, I don’t want to slag off the guy, but he has some serious issues. How do you know Britain has?

“Those who disapprove of such practices have no alternative but to disapprove of their latest instantiation. It’s not that I shed any tears for OBL; while the world is obviously a better place without him, the reality remains that there will be plenty of others ready to step into his shoes.”

Really? Why? How many of those who disapprove of this killing – entirely legal as it was – have ever expressed any disquiet over the killing of Lord Mountbatten for instance? Or would have been upset if Thatcher had been killed in Brighton? Very few I suspect. I can’t see Chomsky getting worked up about it.

You may think many will be prepared to step into his shoes, but what is your evidence? How do you know? Is that hope or experience?

“But target killings breach the principle of respect for human life.”

So is blowing up the Brighton Hotel – an action not exactly condemned by the Hard Left. Why is it that only the West’s enemies are allowed to do this sort of thing? Why is it acceptable when the Left’s heroes do it? However here we have not seen any targeted killings. They tried to arrest the guy. They shot him as he did not surrender. There was little choice.

And don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy of his sons and supporters complaining about a lack of a trial. I can think of some 3,000 people who would have loved to have had a chance at a trial.

@38: “War as most people think of it doesn’t exist any longer.”

Ever since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the major powers have backed off from direct confrontation for fear of escalation leading to an exchange of nuclear missiles. But the likes of al-Qaeda and the Taliban – as well as Hamas and Hezbollah – know that WMD cannot be deployed against them. I don’t think we have fully appreciated that yet – hence our nostalgic attachment to retaining submarines with Trident missiles.

Britain had early experience of 4GW with the insurgency in Malaya, which lasted from 1948 through 1960, and then there were the conflicts in Kenya and Cyprus. France came a close second with its experience of insurgencies in Algeria and French Indochina. In some respects, asymmetric warfare is a more evocative handle. As Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have underlined, such conflicts can be very protracted and superpowers with nukes do not inevitably win through. One of the conclusions in the literature is that there is no sure strategy for winning 4GW.

40. Bob B – “Ever since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the major powers have backed off from direct confrontation for fear of escalation leading to an exchange of nuclear missiles. But the likes of al-Qaeda and the Taliban – as well as Hamas and Hezbollah – know that WMD cannot be deployed against them. I don’t think we have fully appreciated that yet – hence our nostalgic attachment to retaining submarines with Trident missiles.”

Except the fondness for Trident is not nostalgia. It means that we can *only* be attacked by terrorists. Nor am I sure that we cannot use WMDs against groups like al-Qaeda. We would never do so, at least I hope we would never do so. But Israel’s massive attack on Lebanon was enough to make sure Hezbollah has behaved itself ever since. Even terrorist groups need societies that will shelter them, but if the price is too high, they will find themselves isolated.

“As Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have underlined, such conflicts can be very protracted and superpowers with nukes do not inevitably win through. One of the conclusions in the literature is that there is no sure strategy for winning 4GW.”

Indeed Superpowers usually lose. In such wars victory goes to the most brutal, the most ruthless, the most violent. For Western countries, it is usually easier to go home. What did Malaya offer that was worth fighting for? Which means there is a sure strategy for winning – live there, with nowhere to flee, and wage war without restraint. Third World governments almost never lose to such movements and even then usually only if they are in an advanced state of collapse. Nicaragua and Cuba spring to mind. But even grossly incompetent Latin American governments win against such groups. The only African nation I can think of that has fallen has been Rhodesia and that is a special case. India has defeated serious insurgencies although many more are dragging on. Even Burma seems to be winning against the Karen.

@41 So Much: “Indeed Superpowers usually lose. In such wars victory goes to the most brutal, the most ruthless, the most violent.”

The motivation for 4GWs can be complex and challenging for many folk to comprehend.

The motivation for 4GW wars of independence or liberation – such as Algeria, initially – can be relatively straight forward although no less bloody, vicious or protracted for that. But the motivation can have inter-ethnic dimensions – such as in Malaya, Iraq, Kenya, Cyprus – or sectarian – such as Iraq, NI, Afghanistan, Algeria latterly, and al-Qaeda.

Independence conflicts need not be bloody – famously so in case of Gandhi’s long campaign for the independence of India.

We need to be aware that the original motivation can evolve or mutate into what becomes more akin to a criminal enterprise or means for attracting donations, whether forced or not, to fund the lifestyles of leading activists – such ETA in Spain.

@Dunc #32:

“…but even on that score, this particular assassination isn’t by any means the worst. It’s certainly nothing like hitting a tower block with a Hellfire missile.”

I see what you did there; someone else didn’t.

“The British state has had a hand in ‘targeted killings’ – to use the accepted euphemism – in Northern Ireland”

Any evidence to support this ? I know a few Sinn Fein members of the NI executive have – but they’re not exactly the British Government.

News update Friday

Osama bin Laden dead: US officials interview three widows
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8512819/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-US-officials-interview-three-widows.html

But reportedly, the US officials gained little new information and have requested further access.