(no subject)
May. 3rd, 2011 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tylikWith all the talk about the death of bin Laden*, and the descriptions of it as things from assassination to extra-judicial killing... what are we talking about, from either a legal or ethical standpoint?
What constitutes a proper military target?
Can a person be one?
Is a person's status as a civilian, military, or political figure part of the call?
How much of an effort should be made to capture, rather than kill?
How much does the means by which someone resists capture matter?
What constitutes assassination, anyway?
Are there issues of national sovereignty that should be considered? (Not that there are any other interesting questions around issues of national sovereignty at the moment...)
* I guess I do feel a bit obligated to mention, or at least categorize, my own reactions. I'm not big on celebrating people's death, but I'm certainly not going to tell the citizens of either New York City or Washington DC that they shouldn't. (Well, all right, I don't usually tell folks what do to, and I'm not going to tell anyone else not to, either. The the folks who lived through it all? I'd be pretty presumptuous to try to judge their responses. I guess I don't think it's the most enlightened response, but really? I'd rather have real relief and celebration than phony enlightenment.) And there is some relief - though for me, mostly in terms of a hope that this might draw us back a bit from the insanity of the war on terror. And perhaps, combined with the Arab Spring, might get us thinking about what freedoms we have, and what we've given up in our own country in the name of safety. Seriously, look at the citizens of Misrata, and how much they are enduring for freedom... and then look how much freedom we've handed over for some illusory promise of safety.
And then... there is a part of my reaction that is complicated. I remember watching and listening to various tapes of bin Laden speaking, and thinking that he was clearly bright, well read, and well spoken. (All these things contrasting strongly with our president, Bush the younger, at the time.) Mind, this is not about what he was saying but how he was saying it. I can't exactly grieve - the death he has had seems a pretty natural extension of the life that he chose, which is an awful lot more choice that afforded to many of the people whose deaths he was responsible for. But there was a person there, a person who under other circumstances might have been an interesting voice in the conversation. Heck, what he had to say was interesting, even as messed up as some of it was. I wish I could have seen that.
What constitutes a proper military target?
Can a person be one?
Is a person's status as a civilian, military, or political figure part of the call?
How much of an effort should be made to capture, rather than kill?
How much does the means by which someone resists capture matter?
What constitutes assassination, anyway?
Are there issues of national sovereignty that should be considered? (Not that there are any other interesting questions around issues of national sovereignty at the moment...)
* I guess I do feel a bit obligated to mention, or at least categorize, my own reactions. I'm not big on celebrating people's death, but I'm certainly not going to tell the citizens of either New York City or Washington DC that they shouldn't. (Well, all right, I don't usually tell folks what do to, and I'm not going to tell anyone else not to, either. The the folks who lived through it all? I'd be pretty presumptuous to try to judge their responses. I guess I don't think it's the most enlightened response, but really? I'd rather have real relief and celebration than phony enlightenment.) And there is some relief - though for me, mostly in terms of a hope that this might draw us back a bit from the insanity of the war on terror. And perhaps, combined with the Arab Spring, might get us thinking about what freedoms we have, and what we've given up in our own country in the name of safety. Seriously, look at the citizens of Misrata, and how much they are enduring for freedom... and then look how much freedom we've handed over for some illusory promise of safety.
And then... there is a part of my reaction that is complicated. I remember watching and listening to various tapes of bin Laden speaking, and thinking that he was clearly bright, well read, and well spoken. (All these things contrasting strongly with our president, Bush the younger, at the time.) Mind, this is not about what he was saying but how he was saying it. I can't exactly grieve - the death he has had seems a pretty natural extension of the life that he chose, which is an awful lot more choice that afforded to many of the people whose deaths he was responsible for. But there was a person there, a person who under other circumstances might have been an interesting voice in the conversation. Heck, what he had to say was interesting, even as messed up as some of it was. I wish I could have seen that.
