Killing Bin Laden Once Again Makes The Case For Assassination

by John Hawkins | May 5, 2011 5:17 am

We still don’t have all the facts about the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and the ones we do have seem to still be changing.

However, at this point, it sounds like our men went in with the intention of killing Osama Bin Laden[1] and they didn’t have any qualms about putting a bullet in his head, even though he didn’t have a weapon.

Carney also offered clarifying details of the raid, saying that bin Laden was unarmed and that his wife had been shot in the leg during the raid, but not killed, after she charged one of the US SEALs to protect her husband.

Another woman on a lower floor was killed in the crossfire, he said, though previously White House officials had referred to the use of a woman as a human shield.

He also specified that while bin Laden had resisted, he personally was not armed. However, Carney said many other militants in the compound did have firepower, leading to a “highly volatile” firefight preceding bin Laden’s death.

Carney also stressed that Sunday’s target was more than simply an effort to eliminate bin Laden.

“Lopping the head off the snake is important — but the body, while battered and bruised by the actions that we’ve taken over the years, is still there. We need to keep the fight up against al-Qaida,” he said.

Some people might have a beef with a SEAL team killing an unarmed man. It just reminds me of those lines from Unforgiven.

Little Bill Daggett: You, sir, are a cowardly son of a b*tch! You just shot an unarmed man.
Will Munny: Well he should have armed himself if he’s gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.

After 9/11, that dirty son of a b*tch Osama Bin Laden should have armed himself. Now he’s dead. He deserved it.

Now, in a perfect world, we would have taken Bin Laden prisoner, waterboarded him until we got some more actionable intelligence out of him, then we would have given him a quick military trial and hung him. Because the Obama Administration didn’t want to deal with the political fallout that they’ve stirred up over that issue, they thought it was just simpler to shoot him. They’re right and as an added bonus, we get the satisfaction of knowing he’s already dead.

What this brings up is something obvious that too many people don’t want to admit: Assassinations make sense. Assassinating Osama Bin Laden — and that’s what Obama did — it made sense. It often makes sense. That’s why we’re trying to do it to Gadaffi in Libya although no one seems to have the guts to admit what we’re doing — and why wouldn’t we?

Why does it make sense to kill ordinary soldiers in the field by the thousands or even tens of thousands, while deliberately giving the people who sent them to fight a pass? “Oh, but what if they see what we’re doing and target our leaders?” Whatever we do, the bad guys are going to try to kill our leaders. That’s why they’re bad guys. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate Bush 41. You think Al-Qaeda would have any qualms about it?

Assassination is not a tool we should use without a lot of consideration, but there is a time and a place for it. It was the right call with Bin Laden, it’s the right call with Gadaffi, and it would be the right call with Julian Assange[2].

  1. with the intention of killing Osama Bin Laden:
  2. Julian Assange:

Source URL: