Thoughts on the death of Osama Bin Laden

After reading reader-responses to a recent article in the New York Times reporting on Omar Bin Laden's (Osama's fourth son) condemnation of the US Government obviously for the assassination of his father, I was compelled to write my thoughts regarding this matter.

It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.

However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.

Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?

We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.

However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.

But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.

Revolutions at home and abroad.

We have hit a sort of critical mass regarding the status quo in recent weeks; the obvious ones are the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt which are direct attacks on the former regional status quo, enforced by the USA and its junior partner, Europe (and particularly France in the case of Tunisia). Indeed, the unrest has been spreading and people are inspired and frustrated, and it is a beautiful sight.

There is nothing more beautiful than to see the downtrodden and oppressed declare victory over tyranny. Unfortunately for us here in the US, we are on the wrong side of history, no matter which way you try to view it. Mubarak was part of vast system of subservience (or, as it is known in American discourse, "stability") in the Middle East, indeed he was one of our pillars. He supported him throughout all of his atrocities, and do not be fooled, there were many. We have supported the atrocities of Ben Ali all the same, though Tunisia was never as much of a priority. Indeed, it can be seen, without much effort at all, that these revolutions are, at heart, direct attacks against our foreign policy. This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows anything of our foreign policy in the Middle East, which is a policy that depends on the oppression of native peoples of resource (oil) rich countries; it is a policy that has supported repressive and violent regimes for the reason that they are just that, because one needs a brutal dictator to suppress and incapacitate its people if the exploitation of resources and labor is to be handled without issue. Democracy would ultimately mean that all of the vast benefits of the vast resources and strategic advantages of these countries would justly go to the people: Nationalizations of oil companies. Precedence of of the natives over foreign investors. Labor rights. These are things that run directly contrary with US interests, thus democracy runs contrary to US interests.

Of course, it easy to support Democracy in countries that are already enemies. Yes, the people of Iran and Libya have suffered far more than enough and deserve to be free and deserve to be supported in their noble endeavors. However, so do the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Jordon, and whilst our State Department makes condemning statements aimed at Ghaddafi, and it should, they are much less clear on their position regarding the suffering people of Bahrain. Let's be absolutely clear: the people in Bahrain and Yemen are just as oppressed, if not more, as the people in Iran. And the same went for Egypt. The hesitance of our government to make statements calling for democracy in Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen and previously in Egypt from the get-go I'm sure send a very clear signal to the protesters in each and every one of these countries. They send the signal that Obama is not any different from Bush on the foreign policy front. They send the signal that he is part of the enemy. And he is. But it isn't too late to change, it's never too late to stop perpetrating oppression and violence against innocent peoples. If for no other reason than to save one more life, one more family. Where in the hell is the hope and change?

Obama has shown his true colors regarding the Middle East in the last few weeks; first by not immediately calling for the ouster of Mubarak, and just recently by vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The latter is especially ridiculous, since it is official US policy to oppose settlement building in the Palestinian territories. But apparently it is not real US policy. As if the hypocrisy is not frustrating enough, the excuse given by Obama's UN ambassador Susan Rice was colossally stupid, saying that first the Security Council is not the right forum for this issue(just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and that this resolution would block future peace talks(there is absolutely no evidence for this statement). The resolution was vetoed, and obviously the US was the only member to vote against the resolution (14-1). This vote illustrated not only the hypocrisy of US policy regarding Israel but also the utter isolation of the US and Israel against the entire world on this issue and that Israel can no longer try to argue that a moratorium of settlements is an illegitimate precondition to peace talks. Of course, the following day there was a proclaimed "Day of Rage" in the West Bank, just another one of many protests in the Middle East by those sick of the satus quo. And just another instance where we were on the wrong side of history, very deliberately.

The instability is not just evident abroad however, as recent events in Wisconsin of have shown. And once again, Obama has not come out strongly for the people. Not in Bahrain, not in Wisconsin. And it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever, considering unions are really the last stronghold of the Democratic Party, the last advantage in terms of campaign finance over the Republicans. So, politically, Obama's passivity seems completely ridiculous, especially when you take into account that this attack on labor is really a political assault on the Democratic Party as a whole by Republicans. I never thought I would see the day that a Democrat President would be completely passive whilst there are threats to collective bargaining rights. It is more than disheartening, it is frustrating. You don't want to stand up for the workers in Egypt? What about in Wisconsin for God's sake? Is there anyone you will stand up for besides Wall Street CEO's?

We are not only seeing Obama's true colors. We are also seeing the left finally fight back against the anti-labor right wing and showing the tea baggers that the real salt of the Earth are not Reaganites. Finally we are seeing those who are fed up with the economic policies of the last 30 years, the policies of Reagan. The anti-working class policies. So where are you Obama? Where's this hope and change? It's certainly not in the Middle East, and apparently not in the picket lines in Wisconsin.

We are seeing revolutions abroad, and it is beautiful. Perhaps what we are seeing in Wisconsin is the start of a new revolution, a revolution of the workers who are sick of being screwed. A revolution pushing back against the economic policy trend and the corporatism of the last 30 years. Obama, I'm really beginning to question what your real intentions are, whether the weak, hole-filled reforms you've put forth are really just compromises or are they what you really believe. Whether you have been trying to be careful politically or just not really all that much of a reformer.

Now the world is changing, from the state workers in Wisconsin to the students in Cairo. You promised change, but you haven't delivered. Let's just hope you can keep up with what changes we've been making.