The Archbishop of Canterbury was recently much criticised for his comments about the death of Osama Bin Laden, given at a news conference on May 5th, on an entirely unrelated subject. He was asked,’ Do you believe that the killing of Osama Bin Laden is justice for the 9/11 attacks and indeed other attacks? And was the US morally justified in shooting him even though he was unarmed as the White House now admits?’ To which he replied;
‘I think that the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done, in those circumstances. I think it is also true that the different versions of events that have emerged in recent days have not done a great deal to help here. I don’t know the full details any more than anyone else does, but I do believe that in such circumstance, when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a ‘war criminal’ as you might say in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed.‘
According to the Telegraph, relatives of victims of the 9/11 bombing are outraged. One of them felt that it was an awful and unjust thing for a man of God to say. Lawyers and senior figures from politics and the military accused the Archbishop of not living in “the real world”
The arguments against what the Archbishop said amount to these:
Bin Laden deserved it because of all the unarmed people he had killed; he should not be seen to be able to escape retribution.
Things are more complicated in the real world where due process cannot always be followed and those who carried out the attack could not be expected to put their own lives at undue risk.
He should not have commented before all the facts were known and in the highly charged atmosphere widening the debate was unhelpful.
Arresting and trying bin Laden would have been an unacceptable risk. This was the al-Qaeda control centre – it was a legitimate target, and knocking on the door with an arrest warrant was not an option.
Summary execution as an act of deliverance is justifiable in certain circumstances (eg Mussolini).
The Telegraph didn’t quote anyone who might have wished to support the Archbishop or challenge the logic of some of the arguments being made. It is curious how often ‘prophetic statements’ made by Christian leaders are dismissed because they don’t come from the real world. In the context of the Second World War Bishop Bell of Chichester was similarly attacked for criticizing blanket bombing of civilian targets. But what is the real world? It is presumably a world in which things are always complex, messy and difficult, but where the basic principles of justice are necessary as a kind of thread to help us though the maze. Even if circumstances do not always allow us to behave in ways that would conform with our strictest principles, those principles cannot be modified or the foundations of a just society would be severely weakened.
So how are we to approach this difficult issue? First, it is unlikely that we will ever have all the facts on which to base an accurate judgment. We may never know all the evidence there was for Bin Laden’s responsibility for acts of terrorism or for what he might have been planning. Nor might it have been possible to put him on public trial. In both cases the releasing of relevant information might have put at threat the sources of such information. This is an area in which governments have to be trusted, and where that trust will depend on a general perception of the moral character of the military personnel and political leadership making these decisions. The more we know and trust those in authority, the more we will sympathise deeply with the impossibly difficult decisions they have to make, just as we will sympathise with those who have to carry out their decisions and react instantly in situations where fear and professional expertise are nicely balanced.
So what part should Christian leadership play in all this? That part should I think be public and private, reflective and prophetic, supportive and hard-hitting. Religious leaders of any kind are in part responsible for educating the conscience of society; they are the people who should have time to think long and hard about the moral issues that confront all those who have to make difficult political and practical decisions. And they should share that thinking with all of us. The more our political and military leaders allow themselves to be guided by the best moral thinking our society can produce, the more we are likely to trust them. Religious and political leaders share the real world with one another, and as soon as the latter begin to accuse the moral thinkers of not living in the real world we may begin to feel suspicious.
Why are comments like those of our Archbishop felt to be threatening? Is it that he may have touched on a raw nerve? An adequate response to his admittedly off the cuff (though it is a carefully tailored moral cuff) remark, would have been a moral defense of the action that had been taken, and an account of the issues that had to be weighed in coming to such a decision. Why was this action morally justifiable in a society like ours? Is it adequate simply to point to the atrocities for which he is held to be responsible? Is this a situation in which an eye for an eye is appropriate? That principle when it was enunciated in the Old Testament was of course not held to be simply a matter of vengeance. It was introduced in ancient Jewish law as a way of insuring proportional retaliation.
Was ‘taking out’ Bin Laden a proportional response, when no other was practically available? Or does the maintenance of our core ethical values require that we may sometimes have to make the risky attempt to act according to those values recognizing that our security and public safety may be threatened in the process? Might it have been possible to arrest him and put him on trial, or might it have been better to leave him where he was but build up our efforts to curtail his activities? What are the likely consequences of his assassination and, however serious they may be, was the decision to ‘take him out’ still justified? To what extent does the responsibility for protecting national security justify morally questionable actions, especially when our grounds for action are partly based on a claimed defense of ‘free and civilised’ society? The balance is a very delicate one, just as the balance between trust and suspicion is a delicate one for those who would seek to challenge the decisions of those in power. We might suspect that a decision is made to gain political advantage, as well as being in the interest of national security. But the extent to which we imply the former may weaken the possibility of our being heard when we seek to speak truth to power.
All these questions are relevant in these circumstances and no doubt, were the Archbishop to hold a press conference on this subject, he would ask them all and more. They are the questions a civilized society has to ask itself in such circumstances, because we all live in a real moral world.
With my love and prayers
The Vicar Writes
Stephen Tucker