Current Events
My Reaction To Osama bin Laden's Death
by NOAM CHOMSKY
It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law.
There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them.
In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.
What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't
know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the
Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly
dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with
evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama
was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we
quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin
Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won
the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great
achievement.
There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan
didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and
security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said
about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded
their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American
fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to
exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already,
predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim
world.
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.
Uncontroversially, George W.'s crimes vastly exceed bin
Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider"
who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for
which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths,
millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter
sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.
There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just
died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine"
that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists
themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice
that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.
Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so
profound throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they
are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance
against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after
victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were
to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."
There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His latest books are a new edition of Power and Terror, The Essential Chomsky (edited by Anthony Arnove), a collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present, Gaza in Crisis, with Ilan Pappé, and Hopes and Prospects, also available as an audiobook.
[Courtesy: Noam Chomsky and Guernica]
May 10, 2011
Conversation about this article
1: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 10, 2011, 9:53 AM.
Speaking truth to power is never easy; it is an art form that takes courage, timing and a quick-silver mind. Noam Chomsky has them all. Even if one differs with him, what is important is the process of analyzing, parsing and making choices, even if they are awfully bitter to the extreme. For this exercise, Noam Chomsky's voice is more than welcome, even if, in today's culture, not many would want to hear it in the public space. That's why I label him an outstanding public intellectual of this society. Now the conversation should continue about whether the killing of Osama in this fashion was for the greater good. Or whether it should result in a feeling of satisfaction or celebration. These are two very different ideas.
2: Harman Singh (California, U.S.A.), May 10, 2011, 2:16 PM.
As far as celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, I would like to quote Martin Luther King, Jr., who said: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
3: Aman (California, U.S.A.), May 10, 2011, 6:03 PM.
I fail to understand how we can resist celebrating the death of evil. I am not saying that we should be partying in the streets but we should be thankful that this guy is gone. Would it be better for him to be alive and be planning another attack? Also for those that think that the Navy Seals should have captured him instead, I say that in doing such would have made a mockery of the situation. We ought to be conducting more operations in this manner, taking out those that threaten innocent lives and civilization itself. Were we Sikhs not happy when Indira Gandhi was taken out? We also celebrate Udham Singh for executing the Brit mass-murderer, Michael O'Dwyer.
4: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 10, 2011, 7:15 PM.
Aman, you have a point but the situations are not similar. When the Americans captured Saddam, they went through a trial by law before hanging him. When Israel kidnapped Eichmann from Brazil - a sovereign nation - again there was a trial under Israeli law. In both cases that I cite, one can differ in whether it was a fair process or not. In the case of Indira Gandhi and Udham Singh, the crimes were committed by the government in power and there was no possibility of any justice through normal routes. Clearly, all attempts at justice had been spurned. And Sikh teaching tells us that when all other means have failed, it is good and righteous to pick up a weapon. As Herman Singh from Philadelphia reminds us in the words of Martin Luther King, one does not rejoice in the death and killing of any man. Hence a sense of satisfaction that necessary justice has been done is different fro the rejoicing over it.
5: Akal Singh (Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.), May 10, 2011, 10:16 PM.
So what about all the people (Bhutto, among others) who say Osama died years ago? Why did the U.S. Senate pass their version of the illegal U.S. Patriot Act two days after the illegal raid into Pakistan while the press was in a feeding frenzy over Osama's death? And buried at sea? Paa-leeez! Did the dog eat the video feed too? When it comes to 911, Chomsky has said things uncharacteristic of his usual dissent. So I ask, who can we trust.
6: G. Singh (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), May 11, 2011, 12:08 AM.
I have nothing nice to say about Osama Bin Laden. Should I celebrate his execution? Was I happy when Indira Gandhi was "taken out"? Sadly, I was. And I even celebrated. However, I was very young and immature. In retrospect, I would not have celebrated. And I shall not celebrate the execution of this latest manifestation of evil. There is no joy in killing someone in cold blood. Fighting injustice is one thing. I support the imperative to resort to violence when all other means have failed. But this imperative does not include cold blooded murder. There really is no justification for that. Those of us who extol our (Sikh, American, Jewish, or whatever) virtuous history, routinely speak out of both sides of the mouth. In our bravado, we become blind to reality and assume a specialness. But no specialness can exempt us from the very criteria we use to judge others. And no justification can erase our hypocrisy - if we (as Americans) call ourselves a nation of laws, then we should uphold laws. No matter how we slice it, this was an assassination of an unarmed man. This was not an act of courage. Trying Osama in U.S. courts for his alleged crimes would have been the right call. Last Sunday, on 60 Minutes, President Obama said that those who question the decision to kill Osama should "have their head examined." But this was a poor choice by the President for which he should not only examine his own head, but also his heart.
7: Ravinder Singh Taneja (Westerville, Ohio, U.S.A.), May 11, 2011, 6:37 AM.
Not surprised to see Chomsky pilloried in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, which compared him to Martin Heiddeger - a prominent political philosopher who was banned from teaching for being a Nazi sympathizer. You figure if the comparison is an apt one. Operations of the kind that killed bin Laden should remain the exception rather than the rule and not become a substitute for foreign policy - which is where the U.S. needs to get its act together. In the broader scheme of things, I can only think of Guru Gobind Singh's line about "dekhan aayo jagat tamasa." In the midst of all our passionate views, we need to keep Guru Sahib's perspective.
8: Parminder Singh (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), May 11, 2011, 10:36 AM.
After the intense euphoria of an evil destroyed, I, like many others have taken a deep look inside my psyche to understand the motives of my excitement and the values I proclaim to my friends and fellow sangat. After reflecting, I confess I too am a victim of my hypocrisy, as G. Singh has pointed out. Bin Laden and many others who share ideas which encompass mass destruction and loss of life to advance an agenda are supposed to face "people's justice." Is this justice the same justice we would want for our own trespasses or the trespasses of our particular "quom," group, or what have you? The greatest moments in my life are when I see the manifestations of my highly held beliefs. Beliefs are intangible, but when they manifest themselves into real tangible actions and things which I can see, feel, hear, and smell, that moment is priceless. "Har chet munn mairey tu gur ka shabad kamaai||" Kamayee is what bears fruit. The ideals of American law should have manifested themselves in this case. Based on my personal experience, it is a temporary euphoria when we set aside our beliefs for convenience sake, but when our beliefs turn into actions, the euphoria is without guilt or withstands scrutiny.
9: Brijinder Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 11, 2011, 10:55 AM.
If we would have put Bin Laden on trial, is there any doubt that he would have been sentenced to death? We would have spent huge sums of money on security and litigation procedures to achieve the same result. If any country had been willing to accept his body, his grave would have become a shrine for his followers. Pakistan took U.S. Federal Aid (our tax money) to supposedly look for bin Laden, when it is now apparent that they were playing a double-game all along. I cannot believe that bin Laden was living in a mansion-sized compound, a short walk from a military academy, in a neighborhood full of retired military men, and the I.S.I. had no idea. If they were complicit in hiding bin Laden, then they are guilty by association. There is reason to believe, if we would have involved the I.S.I., someone might have tipped bin Laden off. We may never know the truth behind 9/11 but Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility when no one else did. He became an inspirational figure to many young jihadists around the world. I think his death has dealt a huge psychological blow to his followers and will mark the beginning of the end to the bloodshed of the past 10 years.
10: Aman (California, U.S.A.), May 11, 2011, 1:44 PM.
Trials and court systems need to be reserved for those that are worthy of that respect. This man and his followers showed total disregard for human life. They do things like pour acid on the faces of girls trying to attend school; girls of their own faith. Imagine what they would do to you, me and our children. Bin Laden and his cronies are cockroaches and they are best exterminated.
11: Gurteg Singh (New York, U.S.A), May 11, 2011, 2:40 PM.
Here is a short documentary by Al Jazeera which was posted on YouTube today, which gives eye witness accounts by a number of persons, including western journalists and politicians who had met him in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaEZRraliTU&feature=player_embedded
12: N. Singh (Canada), May 11, 2011, 4:14 PM.
This article really made me think and re-evaluate my views! Not directly relevant to the debate going on here but I just wanted to draw people's attention to two points. Firstly, what strikes me most about this article is that in the U.S. the intelligentsia is alive and kicking! They have the courage and integrity to question the government's decisions and are protected by law in doing so ... something that is gravely missing in India! Secondly, critical thinking skills, like those of Noam Chomsky, need to be encouraged in our children too so that tomorrow they will be leaders and not the lemmings that populate India today.
13: T. Sher Singh (Mount Forest, Ontario, Canada), May 11, 2011, 4:24 PM.
In answer to Brijinder Singh ji's comment (#9), but solely addressing the issue of whether or not an evil man deserves a fair trial, I need to remind you that in our system of law and justice - to which the United States subscribes - the safeguards and rights accorded to the worst amongst us are the same safeguards and rights that are enjoyed by and available to the best and the most privileged amongst us. No more, no less. The precedent set by this action will have far-reaching consequences in international law in the future, and there is every probability that the U.S., or even any one of you or me, could find ourselves on the receiving end at some point in the future. It boggles my mind, for example, that even a single Black-American would support such execution without due process. Have people already forgotten the days of summary and public lynching of blacks, carried out by American mobs on the basis that it was "obvious" that the victim was guilty? The U.S. not only has a long history of high-handed behaviour, it has also turned it into an art and a science. It also boggles my mind, as yet another example, that even a single Jewish-American would support such an action. Have they all forgotten that Hitler and the Nazis and, in fact, a substantial portion of the Christian world, had deemed all Jews guilty - without a trial? Why? Because they had declared the Jews "obviously" guilty. It led to the murder of millions of innocent Jews. Do you need more examples? There is a reason why our system of justice and law requires the State to provide evidence publicly before the presumption of innocence disappears. No, this was not an act in the course of a war. And no, this does not bear analogy with the execution of Indira Gandhi. Unfortunately, there isn't the space to explain. Moreover, I'm drifting from the main focus of the article ... As a final point, now we know, after the initial lies, that the Americans had full opportunity to capture bin Laden and bring him, Eichmann style, to the U.S. and give him a fair trial before the world. They chose not to!
14: Brijinder Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 11, 2011, 9:13 PM.
T. Sher Singh ji, we are in agreement. I never said that an evil man should not get due process. However, what jury on this earth would not find bin Laden guilty? We can play Monday morning quarterback, but he's dead either way. We may never know what happened in the raid, although reports say bin Laden resisted. If so, then use of lethal force is justified.
15: Devinder Singh (India), May 12, 2011, 12:12 AM.
The fact is we allow our emotions to cloud our reason, and Noam Chomsky is no exception. The question of how to deal with evil is a little more complex. Which is the higher principle, we have to ask: Giving the 'suspect' a fair trail or removing the source of a lurking danger that can strike any time. In the quote from Guru Gobind Singh: "dekhan aayo jagat tamasa", he does not endorse inaction, only that action must be a free action, untempered by personal hate - a job that needs to be be done because evil does not lie in the Divine will; He allows it that we may recognize it in ourselves. While we are largely agreed that Osama was evil, there are those that consider him a martyr. Are they the ones who must search for their own evil?
16: Devinder Singh (India), May 12, 2011, 9:52 AM.
I must say, watching that video (#11), it is difficult to imagine a man with soft eyes and one so soft-spoken, as embodying pure evil. Here is a man committed to a cause, one that is considered unworthy by others, staking his all is what attracts followers in such large numbers. The cause itself has little lasting value, based on hate as it is. That alone is sufficient to ensure its demise eventually - after a short or a longer struggle; for hate is not based on Divine will, "Hukam rajaaee chullna"
17: Harman Singh (California, U.S.A.), May 12, 2011, 3:12 PM.
Once the initial euphoria behind the execution of Bin Laden dies out, I think we will all realize that we have set a dangerous example for the rest of the world. While executions like these may have secretively been conducted by governments in the past, a public execution on foreign soil will lend fodder to other governments to legitimize such actions of their own. If it is okay for the U.S. to do it ...
18: R. Singh (Canada), May 14, 2011, 4:30 PM.
I agree with Harman Singh. If the civilized world stoops down to revenge, it is catastrophic. It is not just a question of bin Laden being dead, but of the process by which he is dead. Due process is what keeps us all safe. If we stunt the system of justice and try to skip fair trials, we also let go of own freedoms. We cannot lay monetary value on trials, and declare that it is okay to save a money, doing lasting damage to our own system of justice.