Bin Laden escapes his trial

Reflections on the recent killing of Osama bin Laden by Jeff Lavin, history teacher at Springfield High School.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20110522/FEATURES15/705229929

Article published in the Rutland Herald May 22, 2011

Bin Laden escapes his trial

Ben Bradlee, the great editor of The Washington Post, once remarked, "News is the first draft of history." His words have haunted me as I've witnessed the reaction to bin Laden's killing.

For those of you who are thinking, "Oh, no, not another American apologist," let me begin with this: Osama bin Laden was a ruthless, bloodthirsty killer, a mass murderer who got what was coming to him on May 1.

George W. Bush said shortly after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11: "We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century, sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions by abandoning every value except the will to power, following in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." Bravo, President Bush.

But we saw a whole lot of jingoism these past few weeks. Pictures of "Nosama" have surfaced on magazine covers, desktops and Facebook walls across the country. There were times when it looked as if we were watching a sporting event. So let me say that I get it: Most Americans support President Obama's actions -- at the moment. Criticizing what the president did right now is tantamount to wearing a bathing suit to a funeral. Fine.

In 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. It was at the end of World War II, and the attack killed 200,000 civilians -- men, women and children -- in what remains the only instance of a nation using atomic weapons on people.

News of the atomic bombings was greeted enthusiastically in the United States. A poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant number of Americans wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan. The press supported this response with the imagery presented to the public of a powerful mushroom cloud, and the censorship of any photographs that showed maimed survivors and incinerated corpses.

But today, we look back on that act with great skepticism, and for many Americans, deep regret. To quote President Dwight D. Eisenhower, "The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. Japan was already defeated, and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Why, historians now ask, did the United States have to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians to end a war it had already won? We are now held to account for actions virtually every American agreed with at the time.

The flag-waving and cheering are still going on in May of 2011, too, but when they stop, we need to remember that we stand for the rule of law. How will historians in the future describe this past month? Consider this:

The Geneva Convention forbids treachery, which it defines as "killing a leader outside of the battle space." Attacks on leaders are prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899, which outlaws "treacherous attacks on adversaries," and by the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949.

In addition to international law, U.S. policy has prohibited the use of assassination since 1976 when President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11905, which states, "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

President Obama now acknowledges that bin Laden was unarmed. Could a group of commandos have subdued and captured him? Generations far in the future, not versed in the events of this century, will ask what gave the United States the right to kill an adversary -- even one we know to be as evil as bin Laden -- without first putting him on trial, explaining what this man did and why he deserved execution.

Most of my students have never heard of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi war criminal who oversaw the deportation of millions of European Jews to death camps during the Holocaust. In 1960, Israeli agents captured Eichmann in Argentina, brought him back to Israel and tried him on war crimes charges. They could have killed him then and there and avoided the bother, the expense and the spectacle of a war crimes trial that drew worldwide attention. Instead, Eichmann was tried and convicted in a court of law and later executed by the Israelis. When my students want to know what Eichmann did to deserve ultimate punishment, they may watch the entire trial on YouTube, and they don't have to question what the evidence was to warrant the death penalty.

We should have done the same thing with Osama bin Laden. He should have been dragged into a courtroom where family members of his victims could have been given the chance to tell him why he's going to burn in hell. The world should have heard the evidence against him in a court of law, not just on Fox News, and it could have been available on YouTube right under Eichmann's link. Instead we took a convenient short cut, and in doing so, we have deprived our grandchildren of a valuable historical record. America would have had to wait a little longer for its revenge, but bin Laden would still have been executed after his trial and conviction.

Future generations will not remember 9/11, what we can never forget. Will they question whether killing bin Laden was appropriate?

News is the first draft of history. We can only wonder how future historians will write this chapter.

Jeff Lavin teaches history at Springfield High School.

(Osama actually died back in 2001.)