Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death

By Noam Chomsky

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

   


We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Copyright 2011 Noam Chomsky

Chomsky's right. There was clearly an order to kill. I have no idea why - you'd think he'd be worth more alive than dead.

This makes me think there is something quite fishy about the whole War On Terror, and bin Laden's place in it. I wouldn't mind betting there were more players involved in 9/11 than Al Qaeda, but perhaps they're allies of the US. Pakistan?

A confession is good enough? Not sure - this depends on US intelligence, which, as we've seen, is never 100% accurate, especially as Cheney's quick to point out - some of it has been obtained through torture.

Of course he was executed - he knows too much.

Bobby. wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 7:58am:


Proof that he was guilty of 911. And I'll give you a hint, a translation of CNN from a tape that was found (and stated by Swiss intelligence at the time) to be a fake, doesn't constitute 'proof'.

Beyond reasonable doubt...now, where have I heard that before?

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 1:18pm:



Well no Saddam didn't.....but that's an entirely different situation..

Belgarion wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:


Have to disagree there. I believe there was an obligation to see justice to be served. Summary execution is not justice.

As it stands Bin Laden has been martyred and so will increase the level of support in his beliefs and terrorism in the long term... just as the martyrdom of Jesus increase the popularity of his philosophy and followers. The West needs to be very careful of who they make martyrs. 

There is also the idea, expressed by Robertson QC of Bin Laden having been mystified whereas a court case would have had the opposite effect.

I think there was a need to have Bin Laden in a court of justice, in the witness box expressing his hatred and fanaticism to the world... that the world may know that he was hate filled with irrational beliefs.

for a time there it did look like the entire Bush administration was nothing more than a puppet board of Halliburton's. Regan went way over the top ordering a missile strike on Philli. What Kissinger got up to in Laos and Cambodia was just plain Nazi and Albright's "we think the price was worth it" gets a special mention. Chuck Blair and Howard in the dock with them along with anybody left to round up for the shenanigins in South and Central America. If they could all go on trial in the Hague it wouldn't bother me one iota.

That said, there's a lot of facts Chomsky glosses right over. Bush never poisoned and massacred his own people like Saddam did. He didn't go to war against American women armed with acid and whips. He didn't blow up world heritage monuments and, sloppy as the execution of the war has been, military targets attacked by uniforms have been the order of the day.

Ossama might have elicited more sympathy by attacking the Pentagon and Fort Worth where the drone pilots operate from. When I attack, (with words) the USA, I'm not attacking ordinary men, women and children. I'm attacking the people and policies of the ruling class and culture. airliners, tube trains, office blocks and Bali nightclubs are NOT legiimate targets.  Nobody who sanctions and bankrolls those actions is worth worrying about.

Well, I have to say Noam Chomsky's comments sound OK to me. I wouldn't say I’m a Chomsky groupie but he HAS played a major part in my political education over the last 40 or so years, so I will always at least listen to what he says. In fact his voice had been so persuasive, I was convinced as I watched the twin towers fall on 9/11 that the Chileans (considering the date) or at least some other South or Central American group was exacting revenge. That it was actually disgruntled folks from elsewhere was not a surprise either. My thoughts at the time were "chickens home to roost" and Kissinger and others were finally getting their due. I am not anti-American as such, but Chomsky always managed to articulate my feelings about American foreign policies so much better than I could myself, so I'm glad he’s still active.