Excerpts from the Gobal Politics Diaries, May 2011:
“If the king oppresses the people excessively, we
reject submitting to humiliation…” – Osama bin Laden, Fatwa. 1998.
On the night of April the 29th 2011,
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered a special forces Navy SEAL team to the
compound and hideout of the terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden in Abbottad in
Pakistan. In an operation codenamed ‘Neptune Spear’ the team killed him. In
order to do this, they had to contravene international law and invade the
sovereign territory of another nation. The exact nature and details of the
operation are unclear, but world reaction to the news ranged from utter
disbelief to jubilation, from skepticism to moral outrage. To date the U.S.
administration has not felt obliged to publicly prove his death, nor provide a
detailed and justifiable account for its action, but has relied upon the
accusation that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group (Al-Qaeda) planned and
performed the attack on the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) in New York on
September 11th 2001. Whilst Khalid Sheik Muhammad has confessed and
accepted full responsibility for this, and remains in custody in the Guantanamo
Bay Naval detention center awaiting trial for mass murder, the precise nature
of Osama bin Laden’s role in the 9/11 attack still remain unclear. What does
remain clear is that the U.S. government used its military power to execute an
opponent. At present it is debatable whether the Navy SEAL team could have
captured and brought him back to trial, as might occur in a conventional
judicial procedure. We may assume that this option and all its inherent and
intrinsic difficulties, costs and problems disqualified it as part of the SEAL
plan, and that the command (in order to simplify the action) was merely to kill
the suspect. Following the success of the operation the body of the suspect
(and following identification procedures) was disposed of in the North Arabian
Sea. And, though we may rejoice or disapprove, express indignation or approval…
we are still left with the question how and why? This was no normal or socially
acceptable manner of killing, indeed it traversed several legal boundaries that
define murder and are in place to prevent it. How could Barack Obama and the
U.S. government legitimately pursue the death of a man and still yet escape
condemnation? What was and is their ‘right?’
Murder, killing, execution, or whatever term is
most convenient to use in any particular circumstance is a central theme in
relation to criminal activity by the illustrious Russian writer Feodor
Dostoevesky in his equally acclaimed novel, Crime and Punishment. Through the
actions and ruminations of his central character, Raskolnikov he presses for a
complete understanding of the ‘right’ to kill. Through Raskolnikov we gain some
insight into the emotional, social, moral and judicial implications of this
‘right’ to kill another human being, and what constitutes a reasonably
justifiable excuse, together with the appropriate punishments and/or suffering.
In the guise of Raskolnikov, Dostoevesky proposes a theory, which we find
expounded in chapter V, part III: the theory is that a (great) man has a
‘right’ to kill based upon his idea or ideals, and such ideals supersede any
and all previously accepted social norms in preparation for what we may call a
social or intellectual revolution. In this chapter, Raskolnikov (who we know is
as yet as un-convicted murderer) is taken by his friend Razumikhin to meet the
Police Chief Porfiry Petrovich. The meeting arises merely on the basis of some
unclaimed property, which itself although inconsequential is connected somewhat
to Raskolnikov’s crime. It is, however of some importance for Raskolnikov to
regain this property, and the only way to do this is through Petrovich, who it
may also be added is investigating the crime which Raskolnikov committed. This
meeting is jovial enough, although the subject of the conversation quickly
develops into an analysis of the theories and foundations of crime. Raskolnikov
posits his notion that criminal activity is divided into two spheres; that of
the poor and that of the rich, or, we may say the ‘ordinary’ and the
‘extraordinary.’ Even more precisely he asks us to contemplate the crimes
committed on a common level by or through ignorance, and those crimes of the
intellectually enlightened. The latter, by their very nature of seeking to
improve society manage to escape prosecution or judicial investigation, whilst
the former are inevitably and invariably punished. Raskolnikov explains this
higher form of crime thus:
“I intimate that the extraordinary man has the
right… I don’t mean a formal, official right, but he has that right in himself
to permit his conscience to overstep… certain obstacles, but only in the event
that his ideas (which may sometimes be salutary for all mankind) require it for
their fulfillment…”
The man has the right to kill based upon his
desire or will to improve the world. It cannot be merely random, nor by chance…
but objective, planned and orderly. Killing must prove beneficial to society
and the general populace. Thus it may be said that (for example) the right to
kill, to shed the blood of another, to take the life or lives of others is
justified when creating new social orders. Raskolnikov gives examples of such
men that have pursued this; Lycurgus (of Sparta), Solon (of Athens), Muhammad,
and Napoleon, all renowned creators of new and revolutionary systems of laws.
All such men, in pursuit of their own particular ideal had to dispose of old
ways to make way for the new… but in such a process they automatically become
criminals and murderer’s, but their crime is not necessarily a common one, nor
are they challenged by common means. Perhaps denounced by the ‘Ancien Regime’
but since the old order is gradually being extinguished, it matters not. And
so, such men connive an ideal by what means are at their disposal; bringing a
dark thought into the light, challenging what has been previously accepted and
exchanging it for a better society. Such men are described as ‘lords of the
future’ – moving the world and guiding it towards its goal (or the goal of the
lawmaker)… the ‘New Jerusalem.’ However, this does not exclude suffering as
executors of the law and those that oppose it; often the punishment is that
dealt by their conscience, whereas the ordinary man found guilty is merely
punished through physical means – at least by the State. And so we conclude
that the man of high ideals may find no other way to bring his ideas to
fruition than by killing those that either oppose him or present a potential
threat. We could even go so far as to say that he forced by necessity to prove
his idea in blood.
It seems we have lost track here, or have we?
What then does all this have to do with the conflict between the President of
the United States and a Middle-Eastern Terrorist? Are we merely puffing steam,
contemplating the proverbial navel or attempting to breech a difficult
understanding? I think most assuredly the latter. For the killing of Osama bin
Laden is not merely the expression of such a base exaltation as revenge, nor
the result of a judicial process, but more to quash a rebellion… a threat to a
system. It is by deduction the power struggle between two very different ideas.
Only by stint of an elongated and prolonged campaign did the more powerful
finally arise as the superior force. In the very first instance, Osama bin
Laden projected himself as a lawmaker and lawgiver; issuing a fatwa (and
Islamic judicial ruling) commanding a ‘war’ against the perceived oppressors of
his people. This verbal attack took a physical form; the destruction of the
World Trade Center in New York, together with several other targets in the same
day. We need not concern ourselves over whether Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda
were justified in doing this or not. According to the theory expounded by
Dostoevsky, he was a man of higher ideals prepared to thrust his vision upon
the world regardless of opinion. Likewise the U.S. government and its
representative (currently) President Barack Obama is a system of high ideals,
one that possesses a vision and is prepared to construct it in the world
against all odds. It may be seen that both parties have a common foundational
agenda; in their beginning they emerged as rebels against colonial rule, both
Osama bin Laden’s fatwa and the American Declaration of Independence are
statements against colonial rule, and promise conflict unless a resolution is
found. Thus, Obama had the ‘right’ to kill Osama bin Laden, the ‘right’ being
that both he and the system which he represents is infinitely more powerful, more
influential, and more dedicated and ruthless. Do we, as Barack Obama claims,
live in a better and safer world because Osama bin Laden is dead? No, not
really… we live in a world made better because much of it conforms to the
dominant idea, and that one man was prepared to kill another to make that idea
happen, and to keep killing. This ideal will continue to spread until it is
challenged again. I was asked what a ‘post-terrorism’ world feels like? I
responded that there is no such concept as a world without terrorism; for
terrorism exists in many ways with differing facets, it can either be
legitimate or illegitimate. Whenever we attempt to force our own idea upon
others we bear witness to subtle or gross forms of terrorism. It wholly depends
upon one's particular perspective, and the degree of power which one force
exerts upon another and the manner in which it does so. The 'New World Order'
to which Barack Obama has attached himself is conceived by many to be a form of
terrorism. One may either be for it, or against it. Woe betide those who choose
to battle against it and seek independence.
All Rights Reserved / Copyright David John Drew 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment