Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Moral men and immoral society and the death of bin Laden

Moral men and immoral society and the death of bin Laden

Last updated on: May 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm by Fred Clark

Moral men and immoral society and the death of bin Laden 2011-05-07T17:17:12-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Killing Osama bin Laden Is Legal,” Matthew Yglesias notes:

… What went down is fine in both international and domestic law. … The use of military force is plainly authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1368 … and this has all been reaffirmed since bin Laden’s death by the Security Council and the secretary-general of the United Nations.

The raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad was carried out unilaterally, but it occurred with the full consent and sanction of international law and multilateral institutions. “I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. It is simply not the case, as the great British theologian N.T. Wright regrettably asserts, that this was a lawless act of cowboy vigilanteism. The raid was legal. It had the sanction of international law and was conducted in accord with that law.

This operation was also conducted, to the extent that we can tell from the account emerging from various reports, with a commendable and largely successful effort to abide by the ethics of law as described by those “just war” principles we’re always discussing here — the same principles President Barack Obama discussed in his lecture on Reinhold Niebuhr in Oslo (on the occasion of being given the Nobel Peace Prize).

That Niebuhrian approach was reflected again in the president’s remarks announcing the successful completion of the raid on bin Laden, “justice has been done.” Justice, Niebuhr said, is the concern of “immoral society.” It is a lesser thing than the law of love or the law of Christ that constitutes the ideal for the moral individual:

From the perspective of society the highest moral ideal is justice. From the perspective of the individual the highest ideal is unselfishness. Society must strive for justice even if it is forced to use means, such as self-assertion, resistance, coercion and perhaps resentment, which cannot gain the moral sanction of the most sensitive moral spirit. …

And also:

The weaknesses of the spirit of love in solving larger and more complex problems become increasingly apparent as one proceeds from ordinary relations between individuals to the life of social groups. If nations and other social groups find it difficult to approximate the principles of justice, as we have previously noted, they are naturally even less capable of achieving the principle of love, which demands more than justice. The demand of religious moralists that nations subject themselves to “the law of Christ” is an unrealistic demand, and the hope that they will do so is a sentimental one. …

What Niebuhr means there in Moral Man and Immoral Society by “larger and more complex problems” is the geometrical complications that arise when the cheek that is struck is not one’s own.

Another British bishop, Rowan Williams, exhibited the appropriately “sensitive moral spirit” Niebuhr describes when he said following the death of bin Laden, “I think that the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances.”

So where Wright accuses the U.S. of behaving like a character from an old Hollywood western, Williams complains that the soldiers conducting this raid did not behave more like Gary Cooper in High Noon, keeping their guns holstered until the bad guys draw theirs. But the pageantry of a duel is not what is ethically required of soldiers. Soldiers are forbidden — ethically and legally — from targeting noncombatants, but enemy combatants do not cease to be combatants when they are caught off guard, when their back is turned or when their weapon has been set down out of reach.

What the good bishops are struggling with, I think, was expressed in more temperate and thoughtful terms by Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, the UN special rapporteurs, respectively, on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” and on “the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.” In a joint statement following the raid that killed bin Laden, they requested assurances that the raid was, as the secretary-general had said, conducted in accordance with international law:

Acts of terrorism are the antithesis of human rights, in particular the right to life. In certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort in accordance with international standards on the use of force, in order to protect life, including in operations against terrorists. However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.

Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances.

In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.

It may well be that the questions that are being asked about the operation could be answered, but it is important to get this into the open.

That matter of whether “the mission allowed an effort to capture bin Laden” is of particular importance to clarify whether or not the accusations made by Williams, Wright and others have any merit. The U.S. response seems to be on two levels. At the most basic level, the answer is yes, the mission allowed for an effort to capture bin Laden. That seems to have been one factor in the decision to go with “the McRaven option” — the riskier, boots-on-the-ground approach devised by Navy Vice Adm. William H. McRaven. The Navy SEALs conducting the raid were instructed to capture bin Laden if he “conspicuously surrendered.”

But the raid was to be conducted by Navy SEALs, meaning that this was not primarily intended as the “legal process of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.” It was a military operation in which bin Laden was to be regarded as an enemy combatant rather than as a fugitive criminal. As such, the salient point for those who planned and conducted this raid was not whether or not bin Laden had drawn his six-shooter at the instant the SEALs confronted him, but rather the presence there of documents and hard-drives containing his plans for future attacks against civilians in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Now one can certainly argue, as many great saints have throughout the centuries, that there ought to be no such thing as soldiers. One can argue, in other words, for an absolute pacifism, for “the principle of love, which demands more than justice” and which forbids all coercion, violence and killing. I respect the coherence of that principled stance, even while agreeing with Niebuhr about the practicality of it and the injustices that arise from that impracticality. (It’s possible that Niebuhr and I are both wrong about that. But our just war position is also coherent and principled and, sadly, I think we’re right.)

But there is a difference between criticizing this action against bin Laden on the basis of absolute pacifism and attempting to apply that same critique while still allowing for the legitimacy and necessity of soldiers and the force they bring to bear. Once you accept that legitimacy and necessity, it is disingenuous to complain that soldiers behave like soldiers rather than like saints. If you accept that wars must sometimes be fought and that soldiers must sometimes kill, then the question becomes how to restrain the evil of war and how to ensure that soldiers are able to behave morally even in the crucible of conflict.

This is where the principles of the just war tradition become vitally important — both those principles governing whether or not war is justified and those governing its just conduct. The raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, I believe, was planned and conducted with a serious effort to comply with both of those sets of principles.

I admire and respect N.T. Wright greatly. I am deeply grateful to him for several books that have enriched my thinking, my faith and my life. But his argument that this raid was unjustifiable is simply wrong. The series of analogies he presents do not correspond to the facts of the matter. They would only be relevant if we completely disregarded the existence and importance of those U.N. resolutions and authorizations that Matt Yglesias points toward. That’s an odd thing to disregard in the midst of what amounts to an argument for such resolutions and authorizations. “By what right?” Wright asks, but then unfortunately doesn’t seem interested in listening to the answer.

Bob Woodward’s account of the planning of the raid illustrates that it was both planned and conducted with serious regard for military ethics and an effort to comply with the rules of just conduct:

A “pattern of life” study of the compound by intelligence agencies showed that about a dozen women and children periodically frequented it.

Specific orders were issued to the SEALs not to shoot the women or children unless they were clearly threatening or had weapons. (During the mission, one woman was killed and a wife of bin Laden was shot in the leg.) Bin Laden was to be captured, one official said, if he “conspicuously surrendered.”

The presence of noncombatant women and children in the compound required a riskier and more dangerous operation than less discriminate approaches, such as destroying the entire compound with bombs or missiles. That’s a general rule: The greater the pains taken to ensure the safety of noncombatants, the greater the risk and danger assumed by the soldiers taking such pains. The Navy SEALs know this. It’s their job to know this. They seem to have accepted such greater risk when dealing with the women and children in the compound, but not with the men who apparently were to be slain quickly unless they “conspicuously” surrendered.

Yes, that’s killing the enemy. And yes, Jesus said we must love our enemies. But again, love demands more than justice, and mere justice is what concerns us when considering the principles of just war for our immoral society. Based on Woodward’s account and others like it, the planners of this raid and the SEALs who carried it out seem to have abided by those principles admirably.

The special rapporteurs are correct that apart from “exceptional cases … the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.” I don’t think it’s difficult to argue that Osama bin Laden constituted an exceptional case, but I also share their concern that such exceptional cases not “set precedents” that would supplant the norm of legal processes in most cases.

That concern is, I think, valid. But the concern that this action was illegal — or the accusation that it was obviously illegitimate — cannot be squared with the facts of the matter. As Matt Yglesias put it, “There’s just nothing there” to support that accusation.

Uncategorized

war

Previous Post

May 6, 2011

Naked - Nature Boy

Next Post

May 10, 2011 TF: Cucumber sandwiches

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which king was killed at the Battle of Megiddo?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Amaziah Josiah Asa Jehoash