On this point, however, I am dumbfounded by your perspective. Although bin Laden’s name does, and will continue to, haunt us, I can assure you it is still very much a part of our lives. A frightening percentage of American teenagers do not know who bin Laden was. I know we can agree on the old saw about those who don’t understand history, but bin Laden and his ilk are still part of a “Current Events” class. I would not be so quick to toss bin Laden’s work into the dustbin of history.
The use of the term “assassination,” although popular in the media, is misapplied. Lincoln was assassinated. JFK, RFK, and MLK were assassinated.
Please don’t give Osama bin Laden the stature that the word implies. His death was his own choosing, both by the chain of events he precipitated long before 9-11, and his immediate actions in his compound. I am surprised to see a member of the bar reach her conclusions based on media coverage. You are far quicker to judge the actions of the SEALs than of bin Laden himself. Had you considered the possibility that the SEALs tried to take him alive? Unless you were privy to the details of the raid, please refrain from passing judgment on those involved. Could bin Laden have stood trial? Probably, had he surrendered. I have been compelled to use deadly force, and am grateful that my actions were adjudicated based on all of the facts, not on sound bites.
It appears your partisanship is also clouding your vision. You decry bin Laden’s fate, but practically gush over the president who authorized it. You appear to be more comfortable with Saddam Hussein’s live capture and subsequent trial, but your disdain for the president at that time is obvious. I congratulate President Obama for authorizing this mission. I am sure the decision was difficult, and he deserves his nation’s gratitude for it. If bin Laden had been captured alive while President Bush was in office, and delivered to the steps of the Justice Department in handcuffs, would you have given Bush any credit?
Please explain how bin Laden’s “relative peace and comfort” factor into the equation. Peace relative to what? He continued his plan to create a world where you, Jane, would not have learned to read, much less earn a Juris Doctor, and your letter would certainly not be printed in the local paper. Was he a retired terrorist? Would the appropriate course of action have been sending someone from the U.S. Embassy to knock on the door with a summons to appear in a New York courtroom?
Leaving the disposition of his remains to his family is preposterous. Osama bin Laden abdicated any right to be treated with such dignity years ago. Who would decide? The newest wife, who has apparently been confined to the second and third floors of the compound for five years? A son who would erect a shrine second only to the Kaaba in Mecca? No. Reasonable accommodation of Muslim customs and burial where his remains will never be found was the most sensible solution.
The world has always had bad people in it, and always will. That’s human nature. “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.” Whether George Orwell really wrote that is a matter of scholarly debate, but the words ring true. It would be nice to think that the world’s “relatively peaceful” bad guys could all be brought to trial and rehabilitated. Unfortunately, that has no basis in reality. Maybe we could show a bit more appreciation for those who bear indescribable hardships and are willing to give their lives, so that we can sleep safely. They endure the irony of protecting our freedom to express any opinion, including criticism of the actions they must take to provide it. Labeling them assassins is the real injustice.
JIM BARRY
Former NMI resident
