E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Last month, the American Prospect published a short essay suggesting that the goal of American policy in the Islamic World ought to be to find Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I'm no expert on the Middle East and anti-terrorism, but I wondered whether that was right. If the point of capturing bin Laden is that he plays a crucial role in Al-Quida, so that his capture is likely to save a great many innocent lives, I have no problem with risking military lives in an effort to realize this goal. But the essay seemed to offer a Kantian rationale, that Americans ought to continue efforts to capture Bin Laden because he deserves to be punished.
I'm not sure about this one. Indeed, I think it is wrong. Imagine, even hypothetically, that either Bin Laden is no longer capable of doing much harm or that his capture is unlikely to effect Al-Quida much. Again, I have no clue whether these assumptions are correct, they are simply being advanced for the purpose of argument. Imagine further that efforts to capture Bin Laden are likely to result in the death of American soldiers and (relatively) innocent civilians. Should American soldiers risk their lives and the lives of innocent civilians just to bring someone to justice. I confess to thinking this mistaken policy. Our goal in the Islamic world, among other things, should be reducing future violence. Bringing the perpetrators of past violence to justice ought to be a priority only to the extent that doing so reduces future violence (and I rather doubt that any future Bin Laden will be deterred by the prospect of criminal punishment). Kant might be upset with Bin Laden being allowed to live out his days in a hole somewhere, but I would rather he be upset than more parents grieve that their children were killed in a mission that had no practical consequences. Posted
11:26 AM
by Mark Graber [link]
Comments:
Since I think it's a safe bet the Bin Laden is not just sipping mint juleps somewhere, but continues to serve some value to the terrorists in an active way, I think this is something of an academic argument.
All the same, even the mere symbolism and moral value in capturing someone key in killing thousands of people seems worth some serious effort. I put aside I assume military and civilian lives was threatened for a lot less.
I think many would think capturing Bin Laden was worth it. If some mass murderer was at large, even if not still dangerous, I think risking the lives of the police to capture him/her should not stop the attempt.
Anyway, I think the ripple effects of capturing Bin Laden, including the idea we as a nation have the wherewithal to do so, will have practical effects. I think that's the bottom line.
For most people, justice (in terms on punishing the guilty) is a stronger force than compassion. In other words, people are more upset about a murdering being free than about lives lost because of a cut in social programs.
I'm more concerned about saving lives, but that's a minority opinion in society.
Like Noam Chomsky and Richard Clarke have said we should have approached this as a police investigation. Instead of invading Afganistan for one man and his lieutenants we could have infilrated with CIA on the ground and recruited Arab muslims to sniff out intel on where Bin Laden was.
So when an extraction or decapitation strike attempt were to be made it could have possibly narrowed the number of casualties carried out in such an operation. An entire war for one man or a few men was highly unecessary in my opinion.
In invading Afganistan what was accomplished? I cheer the fact that the Taliban were removed from power, but other than that Al-Qaeda is still thriving. I'm sure many innocent lives were wasted in that invasion. Not to mention the alterior Pax Americana exploit of that Unocal pipeline being created, and administered by Hamid Karzi who had ties to the US via the CIA I believe.
I find it interesting that our country decides against extraction or the taking out of a leader of an evil despotic regime, but will invade the entire country resulting in many more deaths.
And then the question has to be asked what does the US consider evil? Of course Bin Laden is a fanatic who fits this cast, as well as Saddam, but I disagree that Hugo Chavez is in this same boat. Also let us never forget this country was once allies of both Saddam and Osama. The enemy of our enemy was our friend until they turned on us and are now our enemy. Of course we did not learn anything when we joined forces with the Northern Alliance to get the Taiblan.
So the question now is should we go after Bin Laden? I thought we were supposed to be doing that all along Mr. Bush? For a while you had me thinking were were closing in on him. Does Bush really want him captured? Or are the family ties between the Saudi royal family, and in turn the Bin Laden's and the Bush's getting in the way?
If the US aka the neo cons want him captured then using special forces to do it would probably make sense I guess.