The New Republic

Incinerate a couple of cities and I've got some questions. Kill one murderring bastard and drink some champagne. Does that make me a moral relativist?

- rayward

May 4, 2011 at 3:08pm

It sucks when people you admire -- people who do necessary and thankless work -- say silly things. Dude should have kept his trap shut because plenty of people who support the work done by Human Rights Watch are not only thrilled that Osama is dead, we're only sorry he can't die 100 times. I don't see how these comments change what happen or help fundraising for HRW, which is something he should keep in mind.

- DC Spence

May 4, 2011 at 3:23pm

Last time I checked, Human Rights Watch had no love for the death penalty anyway. I chalk this one up to "dog bites man".

- GSpinks

May 4, 2011 at 3:24pm

Let his heirs file a damages claim and a motion for return of seized property. It's hard to prove damages, though, because he would have had the same result if he had been given due process. Look what happened to Saddam Hussein, he had a big trial with his own attorneys and everything.

- Nusholtz

May 4, 2011 at 3:39pm

"I don't think this shows that Roth is crazy and should always be ignored." He may not be crazy, but he should be ignored.

- arnon

May 4, 2011 at 3:59pm

I think Kenneth Roth is in second place in the competition for the Densest Bin Laden-related Tweet. However, there is still time for him to overtake the current champion, Pittsburgh's own Rashard Mendenhall. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11123/1143632-66.stm

- wildboy

May 4, 2011 at 4:01pm

Mendenhall, the expert, especially on slavery and engineering. Sigh.

- Sophia

May 4, 2011 at 4:07pm

Bit of a cheap shot. HRW probably are against the death penalty and they would have to answer this question at some point. So, what would you have him say? More bloggy USA! chest thumping comments? I think you have to be careful to maintain a dignified response to all of this. Not releasing the photo is probably for the best.

- IggyPop

May 4, 2011 at 4:14pm

He fits the definition of a well meaning jackass.

- NR409654

May 4, 2011 at 4:16pm

Meh, this is the sort of thing you'd WANT the head of Human Rights Watch to be writing. Shoot, if THEY join the happy-happy-revenge crew, who's going to hold the real crazies back? But yes, it's still a cheap shot.

- AllanL5

May 4, 2011 at 4:27pm

I agree with Mr. Chait's last statement, AllanL5's first statement, and IggyPop's whole statement. [Though I suspect the photo(s) will be leaked in a month or so.] I am unshakably anti-capital punishment, yet I wholly support the shooting of Osama bin Laden in the face. It is a paradox, much like supporting the Human Rights Watch cause while killing on behalf of others who support that cause is a paradox, and much like being a combat veteran who quotes Walt Whitman must be regarded as a paradox. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.

- Konstantin

May 4, 2011 at 5:34pm

I think Roth is normally quite sane but this seems like the wrong moment for graduate seminar-style parsing of terms.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2011 at 6:38pm

How is this for irony? "Bin Laden says France to pay 'high price' for Afghan policy" http://www.france24.com/en/print/5135517?print=now "In a purported audio tape aired on Al Jazeera television on Friday, al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden warned French President Nicolas Sarkozy that his refusal to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was a "green light" to kill French hostages. In a message specifically targeting France, al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden warned that Paris would pay a “high price” for its policies and that the fate of French hostages would depend on the pullout of French troops from “Muslim lands”, in a purported audiotape broadcast on Arabic news network Al Jazeera on Friday. “We repeat the same message to you: The release of your prisoners in the hands of our brothers is linked to the withdrawal of your soldiers from our country," bin Laden said. "The refusal of your president [Nicolas Sarkozy] to withdraw from Afghanistan is the result of his obedience of America and this refusal is a green light to kill your prisoners,” he added. French officials have not yet confirmed the authenticity of the tape. But in a statement released shortly after the broadcast the French foreign ministry said France was "determined" to keep troops in Afghanistan despite a threat from al Qaeda. Bin Laden’s last authenticated message was broadcast on al Jazeera in October, when he threatened to kill French citizens and attack French interests in retaliation for the country’s policies regarding Muslims. The previous message, bearing the imprint of as-Sahab, the media arm linked with al Qaeda’s top leadership, said the September 2010 kidnapping of seven foreign nationals including five French citizens in Niger was in retaliation for “the tyranny” France “practices against our Muslim nation.” Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the terror group’s North Africa branch, has claimed responsibility for that kidnapping. In a message released in November, the group’s chief, Abdelmalek Droukdel, said France would have to directly negotiate with bin Laden to seek the release of the hostages in Niger. Meanwhile, two French journalists, Stephane Taponier and Herve Ghesquiere, remain in captivity since their abduction in December 2009 along with three Afghan colleagues in an area northeast of Kabul."

- arnon

May 4, 2011 at 6:44pm

I see the distinction he's trying to make, but Americans have long held that it is proper justice if a suspect is killed while resisting arrest, so killing Osama because he resisted arrest is justice in the traditional American sense, as well as justified.

- GSpinks

May 4, 2011 at 6:47pm

Here is Roth's norm: http://www.hudson-ny.org/770/post-1 "At a conference in Europe, Sa’ad Eddin Ibrahim, the respected Egyptian human rights activist, stopped abruptly in the middle of his presentation to embrace Prof. Irwin Cotler, who had just arrived. Prof. Cotler had been active in the fight to secure Ibrahim’s freedom from jail on trumped-up charges -- one of many such battles that the former Canadian Justice Minister has led, including in behalf of Natan Sharansky, Nelson Mandela, and Ethiopian Jews. For this and many other reasons, readers should add more than the usual grain of salt in reading Kenneth Roth’s diatribe (Jerusalem Post, August 26). As head of Human Rights Watch (HRW) since 1993, Roth’s accomplishments do not come close to Prof. Cotler’s. Instead, Roth has led the politicization and erosion of universal human rights as a moral force."

- arnon

May 4, 2011 at 6:51pm

The distinction shouldn't be that hard. For at least some people, "justice" is not necessarily an outcome but a process. We often refer to a "system of justice." We have a "Justice Department" which follows rules concerning the obligations of government and the rights of the accused. Such matters were not applied in the raid that killed OBL. That's not to say that the killing was not "just" or "justified." Those are moral considerations. And there are rules of war that govern killings outside the justice system. So yes, there can be a distinction between justice and a just act. A vigilante may extract revenge and achieve a just outcome, but that person is not doing justice, at least in one sense of the term.

- dsimon

May 4, 2011 at 7:01pm

dsimon “The distinction shouldn't be that hard. For at least some people, "justice" is not necessarily an outcome but a process. We often refer to a "system of justice." We have a "Justice Department" which follows rules concerning the obligations of government and the rights of the accused. Such matters were not applied in the raid that killed OBL.” The Justice Department deals with cases involving residents in the US it does not deal with foreign nationals who make war upon us and are living in another country. It does not deal with issues relating to war. Bib Laden and his organization declare war on the US. Bin Laden wasn’t merely a criminal he was a soldier in a war. It isn’t that difficult, dsimon, is it? I also don’t agree that justice is “a process” and not an outcome. Justice involves every aspect of a criminal or civil case: from indictment to verdict.

- arnon

May 4, 2011 at 7:39pm

"Bib Laden and his organization declare war on the US. Bin Laden wasn’t merely a criminal he was a soldier in a war. It isn’t that difficult, dsimon, is it?" I never wrote that the killing of bin Laden was not "just." I wrote only that it may not fit at least one sense of the term "justice." I think "justice" has multiple meanings, and that under at least one meaning it is possible to draw a distinction between a "just outcome" and "doing justice," as my vigilante example tried to show. Perhaps the killing of OBL was an example of "justice" as well; I think reasonable people can disagree on the matter. The point is that it's at least an understandable distinction for some people, not to decide the issue one way or the other. The Justice Department example was not to say that its processes should have applied to OBL; it only showed that we are often concerned about the process as well as outcome. If we jailed someone with a lousy process, I'm not sure we'd say we did "justice" even if the person was guilty.

- dsimon

May 4, 2011 at 8:59pm

" I wrote only that it may not fit at least one sense of the term "justice." I think "justice" has multiple meanings, and that under at least one meaning it is possible to draw a distinction between a "just outcome" and "doing justice," as my vigilante example tried to show. Perhaps the killing of OBL was an example of "justice" as well; I think reasonable people can disagree on the matter." Thanks for the clarification. So there is no single sense of justice in your view the word being polysemic. This being the case then it's useless to argue over whether justice was done. To me not only was justice done, not killing him would have been an injustice. "it only showed that we are often concerned about the process as well as outcome. If we jailed someone with a lousy process, I'm not sure we'd say we did "justice" even if the person was guilty." Yes, but above you said that process was more important than outcome. Here is what you said. “For at least some people, "justice" is not necessarily an outcome but a process. We often refer to a "system of justice."” I don’t know you mean when you say “for some” people. Do “some people” determine the meaning(s) of words?

- arnon

May 4, 2011 at 11:22pm

"Yes, but above you said that process was more important than outcome." I believe that some senses of the term "justice" involve process as well as outcome. Again, look at the vigilante example. Would you say that a lone person who kills someone without a trial was "doing justice" even if that person was subject to the death penalty? If so, then why to we have rules against it? Or the bad process example: if a person was convicted while his lawyer was asleep and didn't put up any competent defense, was "justice" done even if that person was guilty? Under our laws, that person may get a new trial. It's not that process is necessarily everything, just that for some people process counts for something. Getting the right outcome for the wrong reason isn't "justice" in some people's view. Maybe some people only care about the outcome. That's understandable. But it's understandable to care about process too. You don't have to agree with that distinction to understand why some people draw it anyway. So I think Roth's distinction between whether killing OBL in the particular situation presented was "justified" (he never said it wasn't) and whether it constituted "justice" is completely comprehensible, even if one disagrees with it. "Do “some people” determine the meaning(s) of words?" Yes, I believe they do all the time. Language has meaning by consensus. And sometimes people disagree on what words mean, and sometimes words have multiple meanings, or mean different things in different contexts.

- dsimon

May 5, 2011 at 12:26am

What a waste of HRW's time.

- miceelf

May 5, 2011 at 10:08am