Different Opinions on American Mission Resulting in bin Laden’s Death
Published in O Globo
(Brazil) on 2 May 2011
by Allan Caldas (link to original)
The operation that resulted in American forces killing Osama bin Laden can be considered very successful. Or could there have been another end, such as the capture and subsequent trial of the terrorist leader? This military action marked a turning point in the policy of President Barack Obama, less than a year and a-half away from the upcoming U.S. elections. It also has generated differing views among political analysts in Brazil, especially due to conflicting versions of the event after reports that the main objective was to kill and not arrest bin Laden. Pentagon officials also revealed that there had been an exchange of shots and that the al-Qaida leader fired against the invaders and used human shields to protect himself.
According to Heni Ozi Cukier, professor of international relations at ESPM, the death of bin Laden is justified based on what Osama represented to the current world and American society, namely: During a war, a leader is considered a legitimate target. He is the head, and his death represents the preservation of many lives because further deaths would be avoided. Moreover, it would have been impossible to capture the leader alive; therefore, Cukier believes bin Laden himself never would have surrendered.
The specialist argues that imprisoning terrorists puts the United States in an uncomfortable situation: Bin Laden was not really a political leader in the same way Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was, and so a trial for him would have served other purposes.
“If bin Laden were captured, what would the United States do with him in Guantánamo?” asks Cukier, referring to the controversial prison for terrorist suspects maintained by the United States in Cuba.
Professor José Luis Niemeyer, of Ibmec [a Brazilian management education school], disagrees with Cukier. In Niemeyer’s view, bin Laden’s arrest would have been the most appropriate outcome for the American operation: “Taking bin Laden to trial would have been better. Bin Laden’s death may spark more conflict. The USA should have presented itself as a nation that respects international law. They use precepts of democracy and civilization for other countries, so in this case they should have painted a better picture of themselves.”
Niemeyer also criticized the release of the terrorist's body into the sea and the fact that the USA refused to disclose images showing bin Laden’s death. America claimed that throwing him into the sea followed an Islamic precept that the dead should be buried within 24 hours, but Muslim clerics condemned this decision, viewing it instead as an affront to human and religious values.
“Historically, it has always been done this way in any action against a leader of such status. If he were arrested, he should be taken to trial, and if he were killed, his body should be shown. This action [bin Laden’s killing], however, was still extreme,” added Niemeyer.
According to Heni Ozi Cukier, professor of international relations at ESPM, the death of bin Laden is justified based on what Osama represented to the current world and American society, namely: During a war, a leader is considered a legitimate target. He is the head, and his death represents the preservation of many lives because further deaths would be avoided. Moreover, it would have been impossible to capture the leader alive; therefore, Cukier believes bin Laden himself never would have surrendered.
The specialist argues that imprisoning terrorists puts the United States in an uncomfortable situation: Bin Laden was not really a political leader in the same way Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was, and so a trial for him would have served other purposes.
“If bin Laden were captured, what would the United States do with him in Guantánamo?” asks Cukier, referring to the controversial prison for terrorist suspects maintained by the United States in Cuba.
Professor José Luis Niemeyer, of Ibmec [a Brazilian management education school], disagrees with Cukier. In Niemeyer’s view, bin Laden’s arrest would have been the most appropriate outcome for the American operation: “Taking bin Laden to trial would have been better. Bin Laden’s death may spark more conflict. The USA should have presented itself as a nation that respects international law. They use precepts of democracy and civilization for other countries, so in this case they should have painted a better picture of themselves.”
Niemeyer also criticized the release of the terrorist's body into the sea and the fact that the USA refused to disclose images showing bin Laden’s death. America claimed that throwing him into the sea followed an Islamic precept that the dead should be buried within 24 hours, but Muslim clerics condemned this decision, viewing it instead as an affront to human and religious values.
“Historically, it has always been done this way in any action against a leader of such status. If he were arrested, he should be taken to trial, and if he were killed, his body should be shown. This action [bin Laden’s killing], however, was still extreme,” added Niemeyer.