The dramatisation of the killing of Mr Usama Bin Laden and family members I could have predicted in advance. The New York Times and other so-called mainstream media are glorifying this operation of one of skill, secrecy and brilliant planning. Why don’t we just declare the American press is the Voice of America and the press is a virtual mouthpiece for the Obama administration and pandering to a public drunk with blood. We see the president under great pressure but wondrous resolve in ordering a raid and not a Stealth bomber attack. We see the warmonger Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sitting near a redacted or obscured document because of its sensitive top-security importance. We see our national security team, more appropriately our national imperialist team, huddled in the White House Diplomatic Room, the recrudescence of the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. as intelligence stars in the wake of the war crime invention of weapons of mass destruction preceding the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is so utterly predictable that an “Entebbe Raid-like” coverage would be portrayed adoringly as a Tom Clancy novel.
Yet the fact remains this was a cowardly and not a brave, courageous special forces operation and clearly a violation of international law. The United States has blood on its hands and nothing to brag about the killing of other human beings by savage assassins who are glorified for attacking a home:
1) If the US had confirmed Mr Bin Laden was in the Abbottabad, Pakistan residence it had several options other than violence:
a) It could have notified Pakistan’s most senior leadership that Osama Bin Laden was there and asked them to investigate and secure the premises. He could have not have escaped if surrounded by security forces.
b) It could have given Pakistan a deadline possibly to ascertain the identity of the occupants. How long does it take to visit and search a home to identify the occupants? I believe diplomacy was needed here to engage Pakistan at this level.
c) US operatives working for the CIA could have surrounded the house on at least a temporary basis prior to Pakistani involvement if a prior arrangement was not possible. The US could have established a perimeter to insure no one could escape. If Osama committed suicide, fine; maybe he did anyway for all we know. If he were arrested under Pakistani auspices, that would have been the preferred outcome.
d) It was not the US to decide what to do with Mr Bin Laden’s body. It clearly wished to prevent anyone from seeing his body or establish a gravesite in his honour. We wanted to get the credit for having killed him, and prohibit Pakistani control of his remains. Yet that is what the US should have done. Specifically, given Pakistan hard evidence of Mr Bin Laden’s probable residence , prohibit any type of escape and possibly conduct unilateral aerial actions if Pakistan would not have responded within a certain declared deadline.
e) The US certainly had the right to insist Mr Bin Laden be apprehended and tried. My preference would have been under the regime of the International Criminal Court. He obviously would not be granted a civilian trial in the US and with an election looming, the US did not want to worry about juridical processes and the rule of law with a domestic trial or even a kangaroo military-commission lynching in Cuba. The US, a war criminal state, does not recognise the ICC for obvious reasons that prosecution of its own nationals might result.
So we are left with an attack that detracts from the reputation of the US: it is appropriately perceived as a ruthless, power hungry nation with its guns, death penalty, don’t ask don’t tell discriminatory policy (still in effect) and the destruction of free speech on college campuses.