1. I used to wonder how bin Laden could send young men off to their deaths and not be expected to make a similar commitment himself. What heroism was there in running to save his own skin after we invaded Afghanistan? But I realized that al-Qaeda leadership could always have argued that somebody needed to be in charge. Maybe they could've even portrayed hiding in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan/Pakistan as some heroic sacrifice.
Now we know that that would've been a lie. Osama wasn't hiding in caves, but in an expensive compound in Pakistan. He didn't die a martyr; he used his wife as a human shield, trying desperately to prolong his life that much further. Bin Laden wasn't a leader; he was a hypocrite and a coward.
2. Some are jumping on the fact that the tip originated from torturing a Gitmo detainee to argue for resuscitating enhanced interrogation and keeping Guantanamo open. But that assumes we couldn't have gleaned this information otherwise and ignores the other effects of torture. What's more, as I've said before, effectiveness is irrelevant; torture is immoral and illegal. Period.
1 comment:
i'll agree with points 1 & 2. but as far as pre-point (i), the image, i'll still disagree (although i do very much enjoy hearing what the XX man has to say, as he is the most interesting man in the world). while i'm obviously not sad that bin laden is gone, the nature of the operation and its extrajudicial nature is still troubling on some level. another country's sovereignty is invaded for an assassination seems to be a bad example of international relations and counter efforts that the global community is trying to bolster to address how to deal with people like this (aka the ICC and how we should be emphasizing their role in international relations).
Post a Comment