Just as it’s difficult for death penalty opponents to be too upset by the verdicts of the Nuremberg tribunal, so it is hard to be upset by the assassination (let us not be coy) of Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, it seems increasingly probable that al-Qaeda’s titular leader was executed “after” a firefight not, rather tellingly, “during” a firefight. Capturing him was never an option.
It’s easy to understand why this “clean” end was preferable to capturing bin Laden with all the awkward questions about interrogation and trials and due process and torture and everything else that would have followed. Too much trouble. For everyone. That too is part of George W Bush’s legacy. (See the depressing debate over “enhanced interrogation techniques” for instance. The case against torture is not that it can never work but that it is, almost always, wrong.)
Besides, capturing bin Laden would not have prompted the same cathartic celebrations seen across America last Sunday.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in