Was Killing Osama a Violation of International Law?

Many right-wingers believe so, as do Osama's two sons.  While there is no concrete evidence that this was a mission to kill, the death of an unarmed (though supposedly "resisting") bin Laden suggests otherwise.  This does not mean that the SEALs are responsible for the assassination of bin Laden, but rather that the higher ups ordered his death rather than his capture. 

As a country that is supposedly an protector of justice and tries so hard to enforce these international laws of fair trials, innocent until proven guilty, and the idea that a country is not permitted to go into a foreign country to assassinate a leader, we seem to have broken all of these in the bin Laden case.  While it is undisputed that bin Laden is the mind (and more importantly bank account) behind the September 11th attacks, this does not mean we should set aside the laws we enforce in this case.

More importantly, simply killing bin Laden does nothing to shed light on what he truly did, and while it may be revenge for some of the friends and relatives of victims, holding a trial where the crimes of Osama were openly stated and proven would perhaps bring more closure for them.  I criticize the Bush administration for allowing such a hastily done trial of Saddam Hussein, charging him merely for the killing of Shiites.  The affect that Hussein had on Iraqi history was far more than this one act, and a lengthened trial exposing all the horrors and crimes committed by the dictator would have shed more light on his atrocities and aided in the "healing process" of the Iraqi people.

Obama deserves credit for taking a strong stance to find the whereabouts of bin Laden.  His desire to avoid any sort of extended trial (not to mention the location of a trial would be a mystery) in order to avoid any possible martyrdom of bin Laden is also acceptable.  However, the positives to be gained of putting bin Laden on trial and fully exposing him for who he is far outweigh any negatives that would be brought with this.  Instead we have a celebratory America, condemned by the international community, and a hypocritical America, breaking laws it seeks to enforce.

Radicalism in the US

Much of my thesis research revolved around radical Islamism in the Middle East, in particular Iran.  However, there is a sort of radicalism in the US as well, and these are radical Democrats.  Not only are they intolerant of the ideas of anyone but themselves, but they give the party a poor name with their intolerance.  Working for Obama from 2005-2007, I had some experience dealing with the idealogies of these extremists.  Much more recently, however, I have been reading a message board/forum sort of site called Democratic Underground- the site advertises itself as a political discussion site, but it is far from just that.  This site produces some of the most narrow-minded Democrats one could possibly think of, people unable to see faults in their own party, and unable to give credit to anyone of the opposition.  Fortunately for America, these radicals are but a small minority of the large Democratic population with realistic goals and open ears.  Let us hope they see the light in this day or the next.

Is the US President Merely a Figurehead?

I beg that question to all my readers, and I am sure it is one that will spark up different reactions among different readers.  If a President doesnt try to follow through on campaign promises there is always an excuse that he cant do it (or anything else) alone, that he has no power to exert the authority of his office if it might upset the status quo.  Many Presidents make commitments to get elected and yet they never seem to follow up on these commitments.  The short answer to this is that things are much easier said than done, times change, as does the solution to problems.  Because of the US system of government it is much easier to speak about reforms than to actually implement them in practice.

Now another common argument from the right wing is that Obama is taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden and that he is not deserving of this credit.  These same right-wingers are the ones who believe that George Bush, yes Bush, deserves credit for the now 2+ year later capture of bin Laden.  Their argument does raise a strong point, however, and carry some weight with it, that perhaps we attribute too much of the successes of the military to the President, when his actual role is not all that important.  Sure, Obama is the "decider" to use Bush's terms, and the decision does ultimately come down to him, but how often is he just repeating the suggestions of his advisers, cabinet, and intelligence officers who are far more qualified in the specialty fields?  While this may be true in certain cases, it has been reported that there was not total agreement in the White House on the capture/death of bin Laden, and ultimately the decision was Obama's and his alone.  I think we can more or less come to a consensus that he made the correct decision.  It is also important to remember that Obama has at no point tried to take credit for Osama's death; he made sure to say that it was a joint effort and that everyone involved was equally as critical in the success of the mission.  So while I do believe that at many times the job of the President today may be undermined by the fact that his sources of advice are stronger than ever, the role is still crucial and because he must take all responsibility for the decisions made, it is not merely a figurehead role.


Bradford Dewitt

Bin Laden Home Tapes Expected to be Released

 "WASHINGTON (KABC) -- The world will get its first glimpse into how Osama bin Laden lived inside the secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Home videos and propaganda tapes found inside the hideout are expected to be released Saturday, U.S. officials said. This new material apparently includes candid footage of the slain al Qaeda leader strolling around the compound.

These tapes are among the wealth of information seized during the raid that killed bin Laden and four others. This collection of data suggests bin Laden played a strong role in planning attacks by al Qaeda and its affiliates in Yemen and Somalia, senior security officials said.

Officials say they have already learned a great deal from bin Laden's cache of computers and data, but they would not confirm reports that it yielded clues to the whereabouts of al Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahri."


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_ne...


Is it appropriate for these tapes to be released to the public?  I think the more important findings of these should be used to help analyze the lives of the organizations to help perhaps get some insight in their daily affairs and help us prevent future attacks/capture other members of the terrorist organizations.  Some say that this will help put bin Laden in a more negative light to his supporters as a man very concerned with his own self-image, as the videos are said to show lots of propaganda and him watching himself on television.  I think that this could be a bigger deal than it is being made out to be- we will see the implications of it soon enough.

A "less narrow" Narrow Banking

         Ultimately the “correct solution” to the US’s banking troubles are not going to come from a simple return to narrow banking or a switch to macro-prudential banking either.  While macro-prudential banking looks in its early stages to be working in Columbia and Spain, it has no proven success in an advanced economy, and its reliance on data and data analysis is fairly dangerous.  While of course new is not always “bad,” when dealing with the American economy I think it is essential to start off with a system that has been proven to work soundly, and then implement smaller reforms on this system to make the system work even better.  On the other hand, simply narrow banking (completely separating commercial and investment banks) appears to be pretty restrictive on both the commercial and investment sector and would thus lower potential economic growth.  The “too big to fail” proposal, while it has many positive aspects, really seems like an answer to only part of the problem. 

        The best solution I believe will take aspects from all three, and the banking solution I propose does this to some degree.  Narrow banking- when done correctly- has worked very well in the past for the American economy:  From post-WWII up through the late 90’s, the US was essentially void of any long (1+ year) recessions, outside of those due to extreme jumps in oil prices (rise in OPEC oil prices in 1973 along with Vietnam spending and also 1981 with jump in oil prices due to the Iranian Revolution).  This was while following a strict narrow banking strategy as imposed by the Glass Steagle Act.  As a reference, prior to the implementation of narrow banking there were over 10 recessions of 1+ year in the US in the previous 100 years (including a number that lasted over 2 years).   With less enforcement of the act in the 1990s and finally the repeal of it in 1999, investment banks quickly began playing the role of commercial banks and taking on deposits, and commercial banks began selling off their deposits as investments.  Quickly this led to the worst financial crisis in the US since the Great Depression.  However, it is important to remember that while the financial crisis did emerge from the mixing of banking roles, extreme economic growth occurred initially.  The best solution should seek to embrace this economic growth while preventing large financial crises that can stagnate it.  My proposal plans to follow a “less narrow” form of narrow banking that will be less restrictive on banks, but prevent the devalue of assets from bringing down the entire financial institution.

-       The first reform I think that needs to be implemented is a simple restriction on the size financial institutions are allowed to grow to relative to the whole system.  When one bank gets too intertwined in the affairs of all other banks and is essentially “too large to fail,” this can be a huge problem and have market-wide implications.  Restrictions on the percentage of market assets held by any one financial institution need to be implemented to prevent the dependency of an entire economy on this single institution.  Banks will still be able to continue growing, just not at a significantly faster rate than the rest.

-       A clear distinction must be made between investment banking and commercial banking, just as with the Glass Steagle Act. Investment banks must be in no case allowed to take on deposits.  Commercial banks must be restricted from selling off their deposits as assets, outside of Prime low risk mortgages.  Requiring commercial banks to hold onto all but the most risk-free mortgages will act as in the past, as an incentive for them to not let the mortgages default.  In my proposed strategy, all assets would fall under 3 “tiers” according to their riskiness. Tier 1 would include low risk highly liquid assets, tier 2 less liquid and more risky assets, and tier 3 the highest risk and least liquid assets.  The basics of each tier are outlined in the table below:

Tier 1	MMMFs, Treasury Bills, Certificates of Deposit, Gov’t Bonds, Euro debt securities
Tier 2	Corporate Bonds, Preference shares
Tier 3	Debentures, Corporate stocks, credit card debt, derivitives,  AAA securities (rated by Fed)

-       In this proposed model, investment banks would be allowed to invest in all 3 tiers.  During times of market efficiency/stability, commercial banks would be limited to tier 1 assets.   Close regulation of the financial system (as in macro-prudential banking), would be put into place by the Fed to closely monitor market-wide risk, and based on this risk commercial banks would be permitted to invest in Medium risk (tier 2) assets depending on the financial conditions- during times of recession tier 2 assets will become available for commercial investment, and during booms these assets would close off. 

-       Additionally, credit requirements would be raised and lowered to accommodate the systemic risk (like macro-prudential calls for), lowering requirements during recessions as incentive to firms and individuals.  This would essentially become another job of the fed- assess and change credit requirements and change commercial investment abilities.  However, because commercial banks and mortgage companies will have to hold onto their mortgages and other loans, they will keep only giving loans to credit-worthy borrowers, and they themselves will face the problems of creditworthiness rather than the investment banks.  Because narrow banking will still be in place, however, even if the data used to analyze risk ends up being incorrect, commercial and investment banking will still be largely separated and so the financial system will remain intact.  In this sense, over-reliance on the analytical methods used to measure systemic risk will cease to exist.

Marcus Sayer

Implications of Celebrations-

I wasn't in Washington D.C. but I have heard from some that it was "an uproar."  I know in Boston I could hear fireworks and there were certainly many who found the death of bin Laden worth celebrating.  But what implications, especially on the world stage, will this celebrating have?  Does it make us appear as bloodthirsty as Al Quaeda itself, celebrating the death of another man?  It certainly will not depict us in a positive light to Islamic states that may or may not have their minds made up how they feel about bin Laden's death to begin with.  Citizens of Jordan, Gaza, and Syria report much confusion after the 9/11 attacks on how to feel: was this a great thing or a terrible horror?

Seeing Americans celebrate Osama's death has been seen by many as a disgrace and an insult to Islam.  With Facebook these days connecting communities internationally, the views of the "every-day American" can be seen visibly to other citizens from the Middle East to Japan.  Students setting inappropriately celebratory Facebook statuses (and often crude and disgusting ones) both shock and outrage these non-Americans.  Did Obama wish to make this something worth celebrating or did he predict that this attitude would be perceived negatively by the international community?  The former appears likely, especially with his delay of announcement until late Sunday night (unlike Bush strategically placing his announcements at prime-time).  Or is this giving too much credit to Obama?

Justin Daniels

UN Seeks Facts behind bin Laden Death

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-un-experts-idUSTRE74545Q20110506

Pretty interesting article if you haven't had the chance to read it, and some of the views are ones I've expressed myself.

The likelihood that there were ever any plans to capture bin Laden is fairly small, and I've said before that I believe the mission to have been one of pure assassination.  I believe the so called "threatening actions" of bin Laden could easily have been dealt with by wounding rather than killing the terrorist organization leader.

This poses the question as to if even bin Laden, the number one most wanted man in the world, deserved a trial.  We gave a trial to Saddam Hussein and the WWII German and Japanese leaders, so why not Osama?  Some would argue that the others surrendered before the time of capture while bin Laden did not, but was bin Laden ever given the chance to surrender to the US ops team?

Regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty (which I think there is not much to debate over), complying with international law is especially important when we are the main country seeking to enforce it worldwide.

Bradford Dewitt