IN THE FACE OF OUR OWN JUSTICE!

By Edwin Cooney

Ever since October 2006 when I heard Barack Obama assert that we, as Americans, have more in common than we have differences—thus disowning the culture war between Conservatives and Liberals--I’ve been an unqualified and enthusiastic supporter. I still am and certainly expect to be beyond 2012, but there’s a little matter of perspective with which I must grapple.

As I’ve written numerous times in these musings, there are invariably many truths about almost every human activity or event. An event may be destructive, painful and even deadly, while bringing forth prosperity, creativity, courage and even romance. I’ve just described several elements of war.

Along with most Americans, I experienced something approaching joy that Sunday night of May 1st, 2011 when a normal springtime Sunday evening became all about America’s cornering and executing terrorist Osama bin Laden. That it was carried out by the Navy Seals, an elite combat force, under the orders and direction of President Barack Obama was for me exceedingly gratifying.

Four outcomes of this mission filled me with a sense of gratification. First and foremost, Osama Bin Laden can no longer conceive and finance mass death. His execution may make it possible for us to draw down our forces in Afghanistan and other dangerous Middle Eastern hot spots. Vital information was apparently gathered during the Navy Seals raid that could assist us in handling future deadly al-Qaeda activities throughout the world. Finally (and most satisfying to me as an Obama backer), this act goes a long way toward snuffing out that implied charge by many of his political opponents that President Obama would never militarily stand up to America’s enemies.

I thought the president’s address to the nation was appropriately measured in tone. He was obviously gratified with the success of the mission and, most important of all, he made it clear that he was conducting a war against al-Qaeda and not Islam.

A week later, Sunday, May 8th, things were different. The president’s statesmanlike moderation was less apparent. An interview conducted from the White House on Wednesday, May 4th was broadcast by CBS’s 60 Minutes. During this interview, President Obama was all business. He once again expressed pride in the Navy Seals, sympathy for the 9/11 victims and their loved ones and a determination to continue pursuing al-Qaeda. Finally, he reminded Americans that he’d pledged to go after Osama bin Laden during his successful 2008 presidential quest.

At the end of the interview, however, there was, for many, a most uncomfortable presidential assertion. The president made it clear that he lost no sleep over the decision to execute Osama bin Laden, then he emphatically asserted that anyone who would question the elimination of this mass murderer “…needs to have their head examined.”

Many, despite their pleasure with the success of this mission, privately checked with their consciences to determine whether execution without trial wasn’t murder and, with some discomfort, hoped that President Obama might just be wondering the same thing!

I have an additional wonder: can any sovereign nation afford to invade the sovereign territory of another nation? Once such a practice becomes standard international procedure, can we in America legitimately expect to be exempt?

At present, as I understand it, former President Jimmy Carter is probably the only ex-1600 Pennsylvania Avenue occupant who can travel abroad without being subjected to possible physical or legal harassment due to his foreign policy decision activities while in office. Certainly, if an Iranian special force were to invade our airspace and apply their sense of domestic justice on either of the Bushs, Mr. Clinton, or President Obama, millions of Americans would take such an act very personally. I once heard Secretary of State Dean Rusk assert that “America’s too powerful to be infuriated."

President Obama’s decision to execute Bin Laden certainly ranks with several tough historic presidential decisions: Washington’s decision in 1794 to send federal troops to put down the Whiskey Taxpayer's Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania; Lincoln’s decision in 1861 to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War; President Truman’s 1945 decision to use atomic force on Japan; and President Reagan’s (and now President Obama’s) pursuit of Libya’s Head of State Colonel Gaddafi within Libya’s sovereign borders. The question about Barack Obama’s combination of practical and moral decision-making is whether it is ultimately wise and statesmanlike decision-making!

What was disturbing about President Obama’s 60 Minute interview is that it lacked any sense of humility or of thoughtful reflection. A decision of that magnitude, it seems to me, was an exceedingly grave one.

The execution of Osama bin Laden, because he was an aggressive, determined and even proud international murderer, although potentially setting a dangerous precedent affecting international sovereignty, was indeed justifiable.

Still, Mr. President, shouldn’t pronouncements of legitimate righteous justice be tempered by at least a dash of humble statesman-like reflection?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY