A Moral Question

So, Osama bin-Laden is dead and I have a blog, guess what happens next? I have actually tried to resist commentary, since it seems so cliched and omnipresent, but then a question came to me. The question started with what seems to be the debate that has occurred between those of a "conservative personality type" and those of a "liberal personality type." This is not a debate about whether killing Osama bin-Laden was a good thing, but rather whether it should be celebrated as a happy event? the "killing of evil" as I have seen it put, or whether it should be treated with the distaste of an unpleasant but necessary task? the "putting down of a dangerous animal" as I have seen elsewhere.

This led me to an exploration of the morality of the event in question. Essentially the United States killed a foreign national on foreign soil without trial or due process. An assassination. Pretty much everyone agrees that this was alright, even within the Muslim world. It is agreed that it is alright because Osama bin-Laden was an evil man who did great harm. Essentially he has been killed for his crimes, and his crimes were heinous enough for his death to be reasonable, or even a good result.

So here's the question: what crime had Osama bin-Laden been guilty of that Barak Obama has not also committed?

Osama bin-Laden's crimes are that of being the leader of a group that had a prolonged campaign to defeat the USA that killed US military and civilians. He was the figurehead who approved the funding, training, and operations of those who killed innocent people.

Barak Obama is the leader of the US military forces that have fought a prolonged campaign to defeat Al-Qaeda resulting in the killing of Al-Qaeda fighters and innocent civilians.

When put like that it is hard to find the difference in crime. But it really feels as though Osama bin-Laden was evil, and Barak Obama is not. What can be the moral difference?

The obvious and most distasteful reason could be that Barak Obama is a liberal, American. Someone like me, and Osama bin-Laden was a fundamentalist, Muslim, Saudi Arabian, someone very much not like me. I hope that this is not the underlying reason, but I must put it out there for examination.

The second reason that might work is that of precedence, that Osama bin-Laden attacked the US first and therefore Barak Obama was fighting back to protect the US. That's a much better reason, but if you look at the history of US involvement in the Middle East, from Afghanistan in the 1980's, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia it isn't very hard to come up with a somewhat well-founded argument that the US has been attacking the people of the Middle East for decades. This is an extremely complex issue, one which I am not really qualified to describe. It does leave me with the question as to who decides what is an attack, and what is the legitimate defense of a country? Does it come down to me believing that people like me should be able to decide? 9/11/2001 certainly seems more directly heinous to me than funding the military that oppressed the Palestinian people and propping up the Saudi royal family. Is that simply bias?

The third reason is that of legitimacy. Barak Obama is an elected official under a Constitution, subject to law, subject to the will of the people, and accepted by a military that is supposed to operate under a code of conduct. This position is accepted by similarly legitimized people and organizations around the world. Osama bin-Laden was a rich guy who convinced other people to go along with what he was doing, and his methods to achieve his goals. In the same way that a policeman arresting a person and putting them in a jail cell is OK but me grabbing someone off the street and putting them in a cell is kidnapping, Obama's position gives his acts legitimacy. Legitimacy for me is suspiciously close to authority, it makes me nervous. Still, I am enough of a pragmatist to know that it is necessary for people to do bad things, and as long as we have checks and balances on authority, legitimacy must matter.

The fourth reason is that of intent. It is my belief that Osama bin-Laden intended that innocent civilians be killed to further his cause. His intent was murder. It is my belief that the innocent civilians killed as a result of Barak Obama's orders were not the intended target. They were accidents. The difference between manslaughter and murder. While this doesn't make a shred of difference to those killed, or to their families and friends, for some reason it makes a difference to me. I don't know why, but the intent of the matter is significant to me.

So, the crime that Osama bin-Laden is guilty of that Barak Obama has not committed is the intentional killing of innocent people without the legitimacy of official position. Barak Obama has merely accidentally killed innocent people while fulfilling his legitimate official duties. An office and a different intent is what separates the two morally. Emotionally I wish my head could come up with an intellectually more rigorous distinction.