Viewpoint: We’d shoot Osama again if we could
President Obama finally opened his eyes to the reality of terrorism and closed his ears to the absurdity of the United Nations and the European Left. And that single act of courage may well define his presidency even more than the moment bullet holes ripped through the head of Osama bin Laden.
The president knew full well the capture, dead or alive, of the leader of global terrorism would come with plenty of unwarranted backlash and criticism from our, at times, gutless European friends and the oh-so-faithful UN. After all, this is the same organization that condemned targeted drone attacks on fortified al Qaeda leaders. We simply can’t do right in defense of our own freedom.
Many UN members have made it clear: Terrorists can unjustly murder thousands of innocent American civilians, but America, you make sure not to retaliate too hard. Play nice. Don’t forget, terrorists have feelings, too.
For once, though, the president did not ask permission to protect the American people.
We will never know exactly how many American lives were saved by President Obama or President George W. Bush, who put America’s safety ahead of international approval for his two terms in office. But if OBL’s death preserved even one innocent life or prevented just one youth from joining al Qaeda’s ranks, it was well worth the sacrifice.
It was for all the things President Obama did both right and wrong in the demise of bin Laden that caused this laughable notion that the country victimized on 9/11 broke international human rights laws by serving justice to the mastermind behind it.
First, the right. The president adopted and engaged in the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques, carefully processed and communicated with the CIA and ultimately gave the nod to take down OBL. Then the wrong. Either overcome with unprecedented comfort in delivering justice for the countless Americans devastated by al Qaeda’s brutal leader, or just plain woefully unprepared, the world’s great communicator botched the simplest part of this whole mission. The administration changed the details of the operation an estimated 26 times in 48 hours after announcing the flawless execution by a team of Navy SEALs.
Had the president simply refused to discuss the intimate details of the mission, which is commonplace of all covert operations, some of this criticism could have been avoided. Now, he’s opened himself up to the misanthropists in the UN, who are calling for our tactical blueprint used to hunt bin Laden to see if there was intent to murder. Take a hint, you’re damn right there was intent to murder. It’s been there for nearly a decade. And get a life, America owes the UN no such inside information.
Trust us, we didn’t break any international laws on this one. We do, after all, have the most sympathetic attorney general in recent memory. Great timing in an escalating global war on terror, we know. Eric Holder is already primed to be a puppet for the UN, only unfortunately, he still works for us, the American people. This is an Obama-appointee who has discussed search warrants for terrorist compounds. A guy who wanted to try terrorists in civilian court, probably after housing them at the Four Seasons with a private tutor and personal trainer all on the taxpayers’ dime. This is a man who is pursuing prosecution of CIA agents for simply doing their job. You know, that same job that just helped produce the vital information that led us straight to bin Laden.
Holder believes a person accused of jaywalking and one facing 3,000-plus counts of murder and crimes against humanity should be treated the same way. If he testified we did not break any laws, well, then, we did not break any laws.
If that’s not good enough for the UN, tunnel through those layers of borderline insanity in your brain, skim past that decayed definition of justice and dig deep until you find that shred of common sense that has almost eroded in the back of your dome. There you’ll find the killing of bin Laden is absolutely legal. For if there is ever a time when the "use of deadly force may be permissible against terrorists in certain exceptional cases," as outlined by Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, two officials from the Geneva-based UN Office for Human Rights, then this is it.
And if that doesn’t satisfy the UN, well, we don’t give a damn. We don’t give a flip if some Europeans don’t fancy our completely legal actions in defense of our freedom. They’re not all-in on a global war on terror. We are.
Countries like France, of course, might just jump all-in on this UN-driven bandwagon. By all means, go for it. Their support is almost meaningless, anyhow. They wouldn’t dare it back it up with words or troop support, so who cares?
Most European leaders are fine kneeling in the face of terrorism as long as America stands up to it for them, shouldering the load of freedom and security. But when we do more than stand up, when we jump up and kick the doors in, then we’re the bad guy. Nice spin.
The UN can keep making pleas. There’s a long line of supporters that will back their stance, like the moral compass of international law Fidel Castro, who has joined in on the criticism of the U.S. operation. That’s a good character witness to have in your corner.
For once, Americans across both sides of the aisle are glad to have President Obama in ours. Reports the White House is expanding ranks of elite forces overseas to carry out more of these covert operations is even more encouraging. Now if only Congress would push through a bill allowing him to use enhanced interrogation techniques in extreme circumstances, we’d be well on our way.
As for now, we’re in a much better spot than we were a week ago.
Osama bin Laden declared war on America and he lost. The fact that he lost his head in the process is fine by us.