Of course it would be very naïve from my part to ignore that the President of the United States has been doing targeted assassinations since the Cold War and even before. The United States is not the only country to act this way. However, the fact that it has been happening, covertly, does not make it right. A state, more than a citizen, should abide by the law; especially if people’s lives are at stake. But, again, I am being naïve. States will continue to act this way because it is how they have been acting since their inception. Tilly was not that mistaken when he compared modern states to mafias.

The most important issue is not that the President recognized that he had ordered a target assassination, but that the action was completely legitimized by the American citizenship/public. Besides the cheers at Times Square, Lafayette Square or Ground Zero, no public denunciation has been done. Almost no one has dared question the President’s actions. By not doing it, targeted assassination of foreign or U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, away or not from any battlefield, with no post-Judiciary control has been deemed a legitimate power of the Presidency. The President has become a democratic despot. Additionally, by having admitted that the information that lead to Bin Laden’s location was acquired through torture –water boarding among many other techniques-, the necessity of torturing in some cases has been widely accepted, or worst legitimized, also. I think that the dangers of legitimating targeted assassination and torture are evident: if the President believes that any individual represents a lethal threat to the United States – its territory, its interests, its citizens etc…-, subsequently he is legally allowed to order the killing or torture of such individual –covertly or publically- and his decision could never be revised or questioned by the American Judiciary. The President does not even have to justify his killing instruction and he would never be set on trial because of it.

Most Americans would think that it is trivial because the President is well informed and because not any random American could be selected for target assassination. Only terrorists or terrorist wannabes could be. The experience of my country tells a different story. During the late 70s and early 80s the Argentine Junta made disappear, and later killed, around 30 thousands people based on their terrorist activities and that they were fighting a War against Terror. Even more people were tortured. You could imagine that a small fraction, maybe no more than 800 people, was directly or indirectly involved in subversive actions against the Argentinean state. However, no due process was done and even if it was true that all 30 thousands were involved in terrorist activities they had the same rights that any other ‘innocent’ citizen had. You could say to me that the parallel is unfair because Argentina was not a democracy at the time. That is true, but is a country a democracy when its Head of State has the power to ‘legally’ order the kidnapping, torture and killing of anybody in the world disregarding international law, due process and any kind of judicial revision? Even if that power has been legitimized by its citizens, how it has been since a week ago, we cannot speak of an American democracy. Arendt, and history, showed us the extreme dangers to democracy that legitimacy through the masses poses. If the case of Osama Bin Laden seems tricky or unpopular then think of Bradley Manning or Maher Arar.

Personally I think that this is most relevant consequence of Bin Laden’s death. It is not, by far, the only one. The still incorrect perception that war was brought to America on September 11th is still an issue tat will have to be address in the future. Particularly if the real roots of international fundamentalist terrorism want to be tackle. For now, May 1st 2011 may be the day when democracy officially and publically died in the United States and when its citizens answered with a huge round of applause.

I also really want to see the O man start showing his teeth. Sure, this is political capital but he needs political capital and a more no nonsense approach to Republicans. If he is going to get anything done, he needs a second term. And he needs to do what he has just started to do— beating Republicans at their own game.

I don’t know if he will be transformational because I don’t know if there is any way out of the debt left by Bush/Cheney. 13 trillion dollars. I cannot see one, really— not unless we plan for the future economy the way the Chinese are. I would be happy— and this is a leap— if he transformed us into a “good enough country”— like many other places that are not superpowers, but just good places to live— a decent standard of living for most people, universal health care, $ spent to improve a broken education system. I don’t think this can happen for ideological reasons— Americans just cannot see themselves that way.

So I don’t feel any surprise at the celebration. However, I would go on further to say I definitely feel no relief and certainly no elation myself. Much the same way you would have to put down a rabid dog that has bitten people, so too did Osama bin Laden need to be dealt with. It was a necessary task, but it’s important to recognize the irony of attempting to forstall future violence with an act of violence.

That it has taken 10 years is a bit strange in and of itself in this era of satellites surveillance and near-instant communication. I think I would feel more relief if America put more effort into education, investment in our future, and finding smarter ways to get along with the rest of the world. I’ve traveled a little bit and while I would be the first one to say that people everywhere are largely the same, I’ve always felt a little bit of embarrassment that Americans have such an image of ignorance and arrogance in other countries. Embarrassment that such a stereotype has a real kernel of truth to it. I say this because it is this perception that leads other to take advantage of our reputation and turn America into an evil scapegoat. This was the false pretext used to convert rational human beings into suicide terrorists that would steer a plane into a building where other human beings were going about their daily business.

Celebrating the death of another human being unfortunately perpetuates this international perception. As a citizen and a patriot of this great nation, I sometime really wish we would all grow up.

We might speculate for hours as to what was going through the minds of those who took to the streets to celebrate. From a sociological perspective we might look at these actions as the performance of scripts, again as Corey and others have noted, the lines dramatis personae are given as part of certain narrative trajectories, whether presented on the silver screen, the idiot box, or Wii. There does seem to be an element of bread and circuses here. (Well, perhaps just circuses as we are currently setting about reneging on the bread part.) The replaying of farce appears to be the postmodern condition. In America it seems, we don’t get out much.

My first reaction was that people were happy to have an event to release pent up frustrations, some related to Bin Laden, and others which were unrelated. Besides the death and destruction that took place on 9/11, 9/11 made us aware of new threats in our everyday lives, and many types of countermeasures to reduce threats. Anyone who has a taken a flight post 9/11 understands these frustrations, many of which don’t seem to make a lot of sense. Month after month, year after year people have been reminded to be aware of packages left untended; vehicles left where they shouldn’t be; powders in envelopes; people in public places behaving oddly; foreign substances in parcels and envelopes, etc. Surveillance of everyone has increased. We are being watched and we are watching. The killing of Bin Laden relieved some of the frustration.

On another layer, I suspect that many other frustrations are being repressed and also needed to be vented. There is little that any individual can do about the anemic economic recovery we are experiencing; the high unemployment rate; chronic under employment; worries about unsustainable deficits and debts; loss of purchasing power of the dollar with more to come; skyrocketing energy costs and a lack of a comprehensive energy plan; a healthcare system that is in the midst of tumultuous change; the inability to come to terms to unfunded liabilities that threatened to consume the entire federal budget; wars without end; etc. For just one moment, attention was diverted from these issues and focused on the outcome of a successfully executed Joint Special Operations Command mission — the killing of Bin Laden.

Just like in video games and movies, good triumphed over evil, and all was well with the world, or so it seemed for just a few short hours. Many people defaulted to the way they celebrate imaginative victories. Escapism is a powerful elixir. The timing of the announcement at night also contributed to the type of celebratory reactions that took place, some added by alcohol and a need to be with others. Many people defaulted to celebratory techniques borrowed from other events.

There is also another approach/avoidance conflict. Some people are uncomfortable with the use of military force; and yet, somehow they felt good about the use of military force. Some people are opposed to killing for any reason, yet they felt good about killing Bin Laden. Embracing the killing may have helped resolve the tensions.

On a deeper level, there are other taboo aspects of the mission which we are currently avoiding. Was the killing of Bin Laden moral, ethical and/or lawful? The answers aren’t clear because we don’t know exactly what transpired. If Bin Laden didn’t pose a threat to the attack team, then the laws of war require that enemy be taken into custody. If he was a threat, he could be killed. This probably works for both civilian and military law; moral and ethical principles are more complex. Rather than deal with these, the default reaction is to celebrate heroism. At a news conference today, the White House press secretary said that Bin Laden was not armed. My guess is that no one will pursue these issues, but it does raise the question of who can be killed and for what reasons, when, where and how by what authority.

to quote a friend:

“Peruvian president just attributed Bin Laden’s death to the beatification of John Paul II (apparently his first miracle!!!). *facepalm* and the thought that it’s really not only in Polish politics but everywhere where the church is involved that these sort of thing is bound to be said. Politically relevant? Of course. Ridiculous demonstration of populism associated to religion?”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/peruvian-president-calls-bin-laden-killing-miracle-from-pope-john-paul-ii/

What concerned me much more was the speech of President Obama. Framing the war with terrorism as a chase for Osama Bin Laden; the use of the actual word ‘killing’ (three times); the “I” message, which couldn’t keep from thinking about the 2012 campaign; confrontational note that OSB’s death should be “welcomed to all who believe in peace and human dignity” (really???), the sad misuse of the term “justice” that “was done” – was it really done by killing?
Obama’s final thoughts of American unity, American “freedom and justice for all (sic!)” and “the story of our history” that proves “America can do whatever we set our mind to” made me keep thinking about a different duty to justice that has failed so far.
I can’t stop thinking about Guantanamo, Mr. President.