

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It isn't Hollywood. It isn't an action movie with Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis crashing through an upstairs window, spraying bullets. On the contrary, it seems likely that Spielberg or Scorsese would make a more coherent version of last weekend's operation in Abbottabad, appreciating both its moral dimension and the need to get the story straight in advance.
For most of last week, the United States government seemed to be operating from a series of bellicose scripts. US special forces had met fierce resistance in Osama bin Laden's compound; they were involved in a fire-fight lasting up to 40 minutes; the al-Qa'ida leader (or someone) had used one of his wives as a human shield. In Washington, President Barack Obama and his top advisers had witnessed Bin Laden's death, relayed to them live from a camera on the helmet of one of the US Navy Seals. The tension was reflected in a photo taken in the White House situation room, Hillary Clinton nervously covering her mouth.
Now it appears that none of this is true. The US team met little resistance and surprised Bin Laden in a doorway. Yesterday's spin, that he turned to go back into the room, possibly to retrieve a weapon, raises even more questions about why he wasn't captured alive. Distastefully, he appears to have been shot in front of his 12-year-old daughter, while his wife was wounded in the leg trying to protect him. Obama and his aides didn't see the raid live. It isn't clear what they were watching - a DVD of Saving Private Ryan?
Even a halfway-competent script editor would return this dog's breakfast with acerbic comments. But the White House's lamentable handling of the raid has begun to tarnish the celebrations that erupted (tastelessly, in my view) on the streets of America after the killing was announced. Too many people have died to characterise this sombre event as some kind of edge-of-seat sports fixture.
Last year, the President shocked liberal commentators with the announcement that he had approved the "targeted killing" of a US citizen, the Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be in Yemen. Last weekend's operation shows that the administration has gone further and is operating a policy of extra-judicial execution against its most high-profile enemies, even when they are not actively engaged in terrorist attacks. And that should trouble all of us who believe in the rule of law.
I loathe Bin Laden. I despise his cruelty, puritanism, misogyny and romanticising of violent death. For all these reasons, I'd rather see him demystified in a courtroom day after day than transformed into a martyr. The Allies managed to put leading Nazis on trial at the end of the Second World War, even though they posed a much greater threat to Europe than Bin Laden's pipe dream of a return of the caliphate.
The election of Barack Obama was supposed to mark a definitive break with the cowboy lawlessness of the Bush administration. It was supposed to be the moment when liberals could feel solidarity with the US again, instead of wincing each time an American president claims leadership of the free world. Countries that aspire to a model of universal rights can claim moral superiority over the miserable theology of al-Qa'ida, but there are no exceptions. No matter how great the temptation, and identifying Bin Laden's hiding place falls into that category, democratic leaders have to behave better all the time.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It isn't Hollywood. It isn't an action movie with Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis crashing through an upstairs window, spraying bullets. On the contrary, it seems likely that Spielberg or Scorsese would make a more coherent version of last weekend's operation in Abbottabad, appreciating both its moral dimension and the need to get the story straight in advance.
For most of last week, the United States government seemed to be operating from a series of bellicose scripts. US special forces had met fierce resistance in Osama bin Laden's compound; they were involved in a fire-fight lasting up to 40 minutes; the al-Qa'ida leader (or someone) had used one of his wives as a human shield. In Washington, President Barack Obama and his top advisers had witnessed Bin Laden's death, relayed to them live from a camera on the helmet of one of the US Navy Seals. The tension was reflected in a photo taken in the White House situation room, Hillary Clinton nervously covering her mouth.
Now it appears that none of this is true. The US team met little resistance and surprised Bin Laden in a doorway. Yesterday's spin, that he turned to go back into the room, possibly to retrieve a weapon, raises even more questions about why he wasn't captured alive. Distastefully, he appears to have been shot in front of his 12-year-old daughter, while his wife was wounded in the leg trying to protect him. Obama and his aides didn't see the raid live. It isn't clear what they were watching - a DVD of Saving Private Ryan?
Even a halfway-competent script editor would return this dog's breakfast with acerbic comments. But the White House's lamentable handling of the raid has begun to tarnish the celebrations that erupted (tastelessly, in my view) on the streets of America after the killing was announced. Too many people have died to characterise this sombre event as some kind of edge-of-seat sports fixture.
Last year, the President shocked liberal commentators with the announcement that he had approved the "targeted killing" of a US citizen, the Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be in Yemen. Last weekend's operation shows that the administration has gone further and is operating a policy of extra-judicial execution against its most high-profile enemies, even when they are not actively engaged in terrorist attacks. And that should trouble all of us who believe in the rule of law.
I loathe Bin Laden. I despise his cruelty, puritanism, misogyny and romanticising of violent death. For all these reasons, I'd rather see him demystified in a courtroom day after day than transformed into a martyr. The Allies managed to put leading Nazis on trial at the end of the Second World War, even though they posed a much greater threat to Europe than Bin Laden's pipe dream of a return of the caliphate.
The election of Barack Obama was supposed to mark a definitive break with the cowboy lawlessness of the Bush administration. It was supposed to be the moment when liberals could feel solidarity with the US again, instead of wincing each time an American president claims leadership of the free world. Countries that aspire to a model of universal rights can claim moral superiority over the miserable theology of al-Qa'ida, but there are no exceptions. No matter how great the temptation, and identifying Bin Laden's hiding place falls into that category, democratic leaders have to behave better all the time.
It isn't Hollywood. It isn't an action movie with Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis crashing through an upstairs window, spraying bullets. On the contrary, it seems likely that Spielberg or Scorsese would make a more coherent version of last weekend's operation in Abbottabad, appreciating both its moral dimension and the need to get the story straight in advance.
For most of last week, the United States government seemed to be operating from a series of bellicose scripts. US special forces had met fierce resistance in Osama bin Laden's compound; they were involved in a fire-fight lasting up to 40 minutes; the al-Qa'ida leader (or someone) had used one of his wives as a human shield. In Washington, President Barack Obama and his top advisers had witnessed Bin Laden's death, relayed to them live from a camera on the helmet of one of the US Navy Seals. The tension was reflected in a photo taken in the White House situation room, Hillary Clinton nervously covering her mouth.
Now it appears that none of this is true. The US team met little resistance and surprised Bin Laden in a doorway. Yesterday's spin, that he turned to go back into the room, possibly to retrieve a weapon, raises even more questions about why he wasn't captured alive. Distastefully, he appears to have been shot in front of his 12-year-old daughter, while his wife was wounded in the leg trying to protect him. Obama and his aides didn't see the raid live. It isn't clear what they were watching - a DVD of Saving Private Ryan?
Even a halfway-competent script editor would return this dog's breakfast with acerbic comments. But the White House's lamentable handling of the raid has begun to tarnish the celebrations that erupted (tastelessly, in my view) on the streets of America after the killing was announced. Too many people have died to characterise this sombre event as some kind of edge-of-seat sports fixture.
Last year, the President shocked liberal commentators with the announcement that he had approved the "targeted killing" of a US citizen, the Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be in Yemen. Last weekend's operation shows that the administration has gone further and is operating a policy of extra-judicial execution against its most high-profile enemies, even when they are not actively engaged in terrorist attacks. And that should trouble all of us who believe in the rule of law.
I loathe Bin Laden. I despise his cruelty, puritanism, misogyny and romanticising of violent death. For all these reasons, I'd rather see him demystified in a courtroom day after day than transformed into a martyr. The Allies managed to put leading Nazis on trial at the end of the Second World War, even though they posed a much greater threat to Europe than Bin Laden's pipe dream of a return of the caliphate.
The election of Barack Obama was supposed to mark a definitive break with the cowboy lawlessness of the Bush administration. It was supposed to be the moment when liberals could feel solidarity with the US again, instead of wincing each time an American president claims leadership of the free world. Countries that aspire to a model of universal rights can claim moral superiority over the miserable theology of al-Qa'ida, but there are no exceptions. No matter how great the temptation, and identifying Bin Laden's hiding place falls into that category, democratic leaders have to behave better all the time.