Here’s Michael Goldfarb‘s op-ed on hypothetically trying Osama bin Laden, in which he argues that it would be better for OBL to remain “in limbo”, never caught or killed:
For example, would America or Pakistan actually want to capture him and put him on trial? Consider the security risk — particularly to the latter — of putting Osama in a courtroom. As for the U.S., just look at the screaming and hollering that has gone on over holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and shutting Guantanamo and moving prisoners onto American soil. You would have to multiply that by a factor of at least a thousand to gauge what the public reaction would be to putting bin Laden on trial in an American court.
Do any of the countries pursuing the man want to kill him? Yes, of course. But do they want to own his execution and provide pictorial proof of death, thus giving an image to the world that would replace Che Guevara on a billion T-shirts, not to mention painting a target on themselves for the rest of the century?
You can practically smell Goldfarb soiling himself. We shouldn’t try Osama bin Laden in civilian court because people will argue about it and he might say mean things! There really is no pretext too flimsy for the torture wing of the GOP to cast the government’s legal obligations aside–they’re practically arbitrary.
Personally, I can’t think of a more satisfying outcome than seeing bin Laden answer for his crimes in court. If he was killed by a drone attack or died in battle, he’d cease being a threat, but he’d be a martyr, a rallying cry. He’d continue to inspire extremists everywhere.
But trying Osama bin Laden in court? That would be better than killing him–it would puncture his legend. He wouldn’t be some invincible holy warrior, he’d be a criminal. People like Goldfarb invest in that legend (he refers to OBL as “that elusive Desert Pimpernel”) because portraying terrorists as almost supernatural justifies the kind of “extraordinary” and immoral policy measures they support, such as torture or in Goldfarb’s case, the killing of children. The better to keep bin Laden in “limbo,” Goldfarb argues, that way, we can continue living in fear and hopefully voting Republican.
There’s also another transparent political motive here. The prospect of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is very unlikely, given the circumstances. But if it did happen, say, during an Obama administration? Well, Goldfarb would be right out there arguing that it would have been better if it hadn’t. That is some quality pre-hackery right there.
— A. Serwer
