Below is today’s column in USA Today on the death of Osama Bin Laden.
The death of Osama bin Laden has left the United States with a type of morning-after effect. For 10 years, an ever-expanding war on terror has been defined by one central dark figure: Osama bin Laden. It is perhaps not surprising that in a celebrity-driven society, even our wars seemed personality driven. For many, Iraq was about Saddam Hussein. Afghanistan was about Osama bin Laden. With both of these defining figures gone, however, it is time to take account of what has been lost, and what has been gained.
For civil libertarians, the legacy of bin Laden is most troubling because it shows how the greatest injuries from terror are often self-inflicted. Bin Laden’s twisted notion of success was not the bringing down of two buildings in New York or the partial destruction of the Pentagon. It was how the response to those attacks by the United States resulted in our abandonment of core principles and values in the “war on terror.” Many of the most lasting impacts of this ill-defined war were felt domestically, not internationally.
Starting with George W. Bush, the 9/11 attacks were used to justify the creation of a massive counterterrorism system with growing personnel and budgets designed to find terrorists in the heartland. Laws were rewritten to prevent citizens from challenging searches and expanding surveillance of citizens. Leaders from both parties acquiesced as the Bush administration launched programs of warrantless surveillance, sweeping arrests of Muslim citizens and the creation of a torture program.
What has been most chilling is that the elimination of Saddam and now bin Laden has little impact on this system, which seems to continue like a perpetual motion machine of surveillance and searches. While President Dwight D. Eisenhower once warned Americans of the power of the military-industrial complex, we now have a counterterrorism system that employs tens of thousands, spends tens of billions of dollars each year and is increasingly unchecked in its operations.
Just as leaders are unwilling to take responsibility to end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, we face the same vacuum of leadership on civil liberties. Whether it is groping at airports or warrantless surveillance or the denial of rights to accused terrorists, our security laws will continue to be justified under a “war on terror” that by definition can never end. There will always be terrorism, and thus we will remain a nation at war — with all of the expanded powers given to government agencies and officials.
If bin Laden wanted to change America, he succeeded. Bush officials were quick to claim that our laws and even our Constitution made us vulnerable to attack — even though later investigations showed that the attacks could have been prevented under existing laws. Despite the negligence of agencies such as the FBI and CIA in allowing the attacks, those same agencies were given unprecedented power and budgets in the aftermath of 9/11.
President Obama has continued, and even expanded, many of the controversial Bush programs. His administration moved to quash dozens of public interest lawsuits fighting warrantless surveillance. Both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, officials for torture under the “water-boarding” program — despite clear obligations under treaties for such action. The Obama administration has continued military tribunals and the Caesar-like authority of the president to send some defendants to real courts and some to makeshift tribunals. The administration recently instructed investigators that they can ignore constitutional protections such as Miranda rights to combat terror. Once the power of the FBI and other agencies were expanded, no one had the courage to order the resumption of lost civil liberties or the return of prior limits on government power or surveillance. It is not the lack of security but the lack of courage in our leaders that continues the expansion of this security state.
The death of bin Laden is not the marker of an end of a period but a reminder that there is no end to this period. For those who have long wanted expansion of presidential powers and the limitation of constitutional rights, bin Laden gave them an irresistible opportunity to reshape this country — and the expectations of our citizens. We now accept thousands of security cameras in public places, intrusive physical searches and expanding police powers as the new reality of American life. The privacy that once defined this nation is now viewed as a quaint, if not naive, concept. Police power works like the release of gas in a closed space: expand the space and the gas fills it. It is rare in history to see ground lost in civil liberties be regained through concessions of power by the government. Our terrorism laws have transcended bin Laden and even 9/11. They have become the status quo. That is the greatest tragedy of bin Laden’s legacy — not what he did to us, but whatwe have done to ourselves.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
This was a military mission to grab or kill an enemy of the United States. I would not call it an assissination.
FFLEO, of course the article by Dr. Khanna is labeled “Opinion,” as it should be. We are in the realm of opinion rather than science.
Way back in undergraduate school I became fascinated by the use of rhetoric to make points. The great hypnotherapist, Dr. Milton Erickson, was a master of the careful use of language in making indirect suggestions. There are lots of loaded words in our everyday vocabulary, and I try to be very careful in how I phrase things. I do not like to use words like assassination in the context of a military operation, simply because it has the connotation of an illegal act. When Marine sniper Sgt. Carlos Hathcock lay in wait for that NVA General and killed him, that may have technically been an assassination, but in wartime, it was an act of killing an enemy.
The Republican strategist, Dr. Frank Luntz, is a renowned master of the use of loaded words to make points. Frank does not use fancy words; he uses words everyone knows, but puts them in a context to make either a favorable or unfavorable impression regarding issues.
But, back to the beginning, the use of the word “assassination” in the context of killing Bin Laden in a midnight firefight in a fortified building is a stretch.
Others and I think the U.S. Constitution, Treaties, and federal statutes forbid the president from committing assassinations such as bin Laden’s. However, we need someone like Professor Turley to weigh-in.
We have not declared war. The Global War on Terror is not officially a war so the allowances given the president et al. during wartime do not apply.
Otteray Scribe,
I was getting this source when you posted above. As a Ph.D. psychologist, you certainly should not shy away from using correct sceintific terminology although it might sound ’emotionally loaded’. The same applies here.
There are numerous articles within recognized and established media sources on the web using the term assassination for bin Laden’s murder.
Here is just one by Dr. Parag Khanna, Ph.D. who speaks 6 languages (“English, German, Hindi, French, Spanish and basic Arabic”).
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-02/opinion/khanna.obl.assassination_1_bin-muslim-leader-qaeda?_s=PM:OPINION
A short bio:
http://www.paragkhanna.com/?page_id=849
I agree with the Wiki definition; however, it is still an emotionally loaded word. Capt. Tom Lamphier, one of the P-38 fighter pilots who shot down Yamamoto (he and Lt. Rex Barber got credit for the kill) mused later in life shortly before he died, that he was bemused by the fact they had to kill this interesting man. And Tom Lamphier himself used the term, “assassination.” But he also observed that it was something that had to be done. We were at war.
Bin Laden declared war on the US even before the events of 9-11. Like Yamamoto, the mastermind of Pearl Harbor, Bin Laden had to be removed before he could do more harm.
Otteray Scribe,
There is abundant ground to cover regarding your statements and those of your anthropological expert, statements that I consider erroneous—respectfully so, of course.
To start, here is a definition from wiki that demonstrates from basic language alone that the term assassination clearly encompasses the murder of bin Laden. Other sources will give similar definitions.
_______________
{Quote:
“An assassination is “to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or *secret attack*, often for political reasons.”[1][2] An additional definition is “the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons.”
Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or *military* motives.”
(Editorial note: *emphases* added)
End Quote}
I agree with the above, even with people I have disagreed with in the past. The U.S. does not have the raw power to dominate the world. We should be taking the high road and setting a good example. I wasn’t there but if possible I would have taken Bin Laden alive and given him a totally exemplary trial as an example of what a good nation we want to be in the kind of just world that we want to belong to.
Thanks raff. We aim to please.
Well said OS!
FFLEO:
Assassination is a loaded word. May I quote a friend who is a professor of anthropology, and the daughter of one of the Tuskegee Airmen. This afternoon, she wrote:
Osama bin Laden declared war on the western world and its culture. It was a global war. He was taken out, just as we went after Admiral Yamamoto and other high value targets in previous wars. This was a military operation. I see little difference between this and a sniper taking out a high value target on a battlefield. Or those P-38s taking out Yamamoto.
I agree that we have some unfinished business regarding alleged war crimes by our own leadership and only hope those are revisited. As it is, Bush, Cheney and some others will never be able to travel safely outside the country, lest they meet a fate similar to that of Adolph Eichmann and other blights on the human race who were eventually brought before the bar.
Professor Turley,
I have read your column several times; however, I did not read your opinion regarding whether or not President Obama’s action to kill bin Laden was legal.
Please give us your legal opinion—based upon your expertise as a constitutional law scholar—was the extrajudicial assassination of Osama bin Laden a legal act or was it an extralegal action prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, numerous Treaties, and standing legal statutes?
Mike A.,
I agree that Obama’s first mistake was not holding true to the rule of law and going after the torture crowd on day one.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/death_osama_bin_laden An observer says that the crowds did not seem jingoistic.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105020016
Mike A.,
Seconded and hear, hear.
Obama screwed up the very day he said, “Let’s look forward, not backward.” If people cannot learn from their mistakes without examination and correction (which they can’t), how does a country – an assembly of people – learn from their mistakes? The answer is – they don’t. Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
The quandary under discussion might have been avoided had the Obama administration re-established the rule of law from the moment the oath of office was taken. Instead, the President effectively ratified the decisions of his predecessor by either continuing unlawful policies or preventing the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. That decision set the tone for his presidency, and the capitulation on Guantanamo sealed the deal.
“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/04/973035/-Osama-bin-Laden-assassination-turns-conservatives-into-dirty-hippies Anything Obama does is considered wrong by Fox. The dalai lama says the killing was justified.”
The Rabid Right is in disarray … the statements coming from the Rabid Right are mind-boggling … My head hurts … maybe it’s from repeatedly pounding it into a brick wall …
Bob,
If the Seals had been able to capture OBL alive, where would they take him? To Gitmo? Where would he be tried? The Republicans wouldn’t allow him to be tried anywhere but Gitmo and then we would hear about the kangaroo court process there.(rightfully so) I don’;t think there was any way we could have properly tried him here in this political climate other than in the military commissions. The Seals were taking enough risk to do the raid and they were correctly allowed to kill him if they had any hesitation about their security.
If you are suggesting that the President shouldn’t have sent a team into Pakistan at all, that would be a different discussion, in my opinion. I think it was better than a drone attack or a cruise missile attack because of less collateral damage and I wouldn’t be surprised if we had the approval of Pakistan, but noone will admit to it in order to allow Pakistan to save face. No evidence of that, just a hunch.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/04/973035/-Osama-bin-Laden-assassination-turns-conservatives-into-dirty-hippies Anything Obama does is considered wrong by Fox. The dalai lama says the killing was justified.