As soon as the news broke that FBI’s most wanted terrorist and Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden had been killed by a Navy Seals team in a black ops mission in Pakistan, there was a predictable cry of “extra-judicial killing” from ethicists and progressives over twitter.
Sure, in a perfect world, once the US had reliable intelligence as to bin Laden’s location they would have worked in co-operation with Pakistan, captured him alive and then tried him in a court. But the US had no idea if bin Laden was being protected by elements of the Pakistani military or government so it is likely that if they did try to do this in co-operation with Pakistan, Osama would have been tipped off and they would have lost their chance. They had their chance and they couldn’t risk it by informing Pakistan before that mission was completed.
Was it a death squad? Well Obama was given the option of targeting the compound with a precision bombing but he rejected this and went for the harder and riskier option to avoid unnecessary casualties. He decided to put his Navy Seals life at risk for the tougher, riskier but braver option specifically to avoid casualties, this deserves praise. I think most people find it reasonable that lethal force is allowed to be used if the target is putting other lives in danger, resisting arrest or fighting back. From reports so far, bin Laden ticked all three of these boxes so I don’t think “secret death squad” or murder is an accurate description. Bin Laden decided his fate when he fought back and refused to go peacefully.
I don’t see this as hypocritical that opponents of the death penalty are welcoming the death. Rules of engagement for military and police to use lethal force once certain criteria are met, and although this mission falls into what could best be described as an international law grey area I don’t think we would be tut-tutting police or military who used similar force in a police raid or in a warzone.
As for the criticism of the spontaneous celebrations in front of the White House and in New York, sure it did look a bit tacky and in poor taste but I can’t be angry at them. Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group was the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan almost ten years ago, a war America and us have been involved in for longer than the second world war. The terrorist attack was the most deadly on US soil in its history. As the current military engagements have lacked the clear victories of older wars, this was a clearer definitive moment of success for America. Is it tacky to celebrate a death? Sure, but were the celebrations in cities once victory was declared in Europe also not celebrating the death of the enemies that resulted in that victory? I don’t see how celebrating the death of the person who was the reason behind the war in Afghanistan is that bad a thing.
Leslie Cannold compared the celebrations to those celebrating 9/11
If we found Arab street repellent when they celebrated 9/11, and I definitely did, how do we justify our celebrations now?#osamadead
Debate will rage about how much or if bin Laden’s death matters in the long term, but overall I have no problem with people being happy and celebrating it. I say Navy Seals team and Obama who gave the order, well done.

