The Psychology of Revenge: Why We Should Stop Celebrating Osama Bin Laden's Death

[maverick56]

Among some pundits, thinkers, and posters here, there’s been a certain level of criticism for the way many Americans, myself included, have reacted to the news of Osama’s death. I should say, I can in a sense understand where they’re coming from. It should always make us a little uncomfortable to find that we’re celebrating death and killing, no matter how vile the person being killed. I have seen more death and suffering than anyone should and I know well its stench. And I have been on the other end of the sight, looking death in the face and squeezing the trigger in response – there is nothing joyful about it. There’s no doubt that a world in which no killing was ever needed would be a better one, and the idea of celebrating someone’s death as though it represented some kind of satisfaction seems to miss the point of justice. And then there are the reports that folks are singing “We Are the Champions” at Ground Zero, which seems more appropriate for the aftermath of a Superbowl victory than to mark someone’s assassination – besides, we’re not the champions, the fight is far from over. Ideally, I would have spent the day with my fallen friends in Arlington. I offered some toasts in rememberance and spent some time at the local war memorial instead.

And yet, I don’t believe that people are wrong to react with a sense of elation and happiness at this news. Here are my preliminary thoughts on why.

First, Bin Laden’s killing today was not the same as an execution, not by any stretch of the imagination. This is a different scenario than the one which played out today. Osama Bin Laden was continuing to wage an active war on several fronts: against the United States, against many of his own countrymen, and against peaceful, mainstream Islam everywhere. Every day he was on the loose, he was likely planning to cause future bloodshed in America, working to disrupt peace processes in the middle east, and psychologically torturing young men and women into sending themselves to their own deaths. Unlike the hollow, symbolic act of an execution, the killing of a man actively plotting against you is no different striking down a foe in the midst of a battle. True, you can and should decry the fact that the battle took place at all. But I don’t believe for a minute that you can fault someone for feeling relief and even joy upon discovering that someone who posed a threat to their lives has been killed. I admit, after both serving in the military and now civilian public safety, I can feel the discomfort of knowing there are active terrorists out there plotting to kill random civilians much more personally, and I don’t like it. I deserve to be able to visit national landmarks and hang out in crowded spaces without having a little paranoid voice in the back of my head telling me that this is just the kind of time and place where a terrorist might strike. And even though it’s a small voice, and mostly an irrational one, it’s still true that I am safer today with Bin Laden dead than I was 24 hours ago. I do not apologize for wanting to celebrate that fact.

Next: the other statement that will be made by those who feel uncomfortable celebrating what happened today will be that justice cannot be served by what amounts to a battlefield killing, and that Bin Laden should have been captured, tried, and then dealt with by a court of law. To a certain extent, I agree with this, as I think many people would. As standard rules of engagement, I certainly presume that the orders of the men on the ground were to capture him if possible. But I have to say, while I’m almost always on the side of strictly upholding the rule of law, the killing of Bin Laden today was not the same as uncomfortable way in which terror suspects, many professing their innocence, have been denied due process in places like Guantanamo. Perhaps, in some technical sense, there is a similarity. But broadly and pragmatically, this is not the place to pick that fight. Osama Bin Laden had confessed in front of the whole world to both his past crimes and to his intent to commit more of them in the future. If there ever was a time when someone’s guilt was clear without need for a trial, this was one. Indeed, an attempt at a trial would likely have resorted in an enormous fiasco: Where would it be held? Whose jurisdiction and laws would apply? How could we really ensure the safety of those charged with guarding Bin Laden, or those in the jury, or really anyone in any way connected to the trial? Could we really justify putting their lives at risk in the name of giving due process in this most open-and shut of all cases?

The “war on terror” often looks very much unlike a war, and even when it does, it is often fought on the wrong battle fields, or in places where it is hard to tell whether the enemy is truly present, or who/what the “enemy” even is. But if there is one place where the “war” concept seems to me to apply, it is to Osama Bin Laden himself. As both a figurehead and an organizing officer, he was a general marshaling forces against you and me. He was not simply some former murderer on the run, being pursued so that he could be “brought to justice.” He was a man actively working to do harm to innocent people. Do I wish for a more ideal world where he could have been captured, tried without incident, and hung like Saddam? Sure. Do I dream of an even more ideal one where none of this even had to be debated? Of course. But do I regret in any way the feeling of security, relief, and redemption for my fallen brothers and sisters that I get from knowing that he is dead? Hell no. Not at all.

Finally, I don’t think it’s true that these celebrations are really a celebration of one man’s death. They are, to me, primarily the celebration of a stepping stone in a larger, more extensive mission: the eradication of terrorism in the world. And as long as you agree that this is a goal worth pursuing through military means, then I don’t think you can fault us for treating this as a symbolic victory along the way. We should ask ourselves how many times have we seen footage of a revolution someplace, in which a regime is toppled, a leader is killed, and the population responds with wild celebrations. Do we react to these scenes with the same kind of skepticism? Of course not. We recognize that these people are not celebrating deaths, but the completion of a goal, and the taking of a step towards a better world. That deaths were a part of that process is lamentable, but not cause to condemn the celebration. In those cases, we all understand their elation: you are free from your oppressors, your overlords, from the ones who seek to keep you in poverty and in servitude and perhaps even seek to eliminate your gender, your race, or your nationality. But how substantially different is what many Americans are feeling today? A sense that we toppled an evil figure whose shadow hung frighteningly and ominously over us, and that we helped send a message to future generations, that the evil tactics of terror and intimidation of innocents cannot stand?

I guess what I’m saying is this: if you want to split hairs about Americans’ motivations in reveling in this news, you can. It’s always uncomfortable to see people cheering at the news that someone was killed, even if it was under the guise of being “brought to justice.” I do not encourage killing as a way to make ourselves feel better about a past tragedy, not ever. It cannot and does not work.

But when an active threat is neutralized, and a man working every day to ruin the lives of not just Americans, but Afghans, Pakistanis, and countless other people is killed, are we not allowed a moment of satisfaction? Not because it changes anything about the past, or in any way lessens the sting of the old wounds. But because it means we can be safer, happier, and better able to pursue an agenda of peace in the future. This kind of celebration and happiness does not, to me, carry with it the darkness of a revenge killing. It is the opposite: not a hollow obsession with the life that was lost, but a meaningful recognition of the lives that have in all probability been saved.

It is not perfect. I can say from the depths of my soul that I wish lives never had to be lost in the pursuit of safety and harmony - no one detests war and death more than the soldier. But we live in an imperfect world where inevitably, they do. I make no apologies for the fact that tonight, I am thrilled that the life which was lost along that way belonged to a self-confessed murdered bent on killing again. There are so many lamentable deaths every day - it is welcome news that for once, one of them may help to save more lives than it cost.

Edited May 3, 2011 by maverick56

[tniuqs]

we'd still be British.

pity you wasted good tea, don't blame us for your forefathers screw ups.

Well happiness, docharris, and myself are Canadians, Bushy is an OZ, we are part of the commonwealth of nations silly boy.

We have adopted Dust as an honorary Canadian because he has seen a Canadian Beaver.

Well so he says

[BushyFromOz]

You can't say "snatch" here.

Bloody good movie that!

Clearly people have been dying in forefights since the advent small arms and before that he would have gone down to a knife, a sword, an arrow a lance or my favourite the warhammer. Irrespective of whether the consipracy theorists among us belive that this was a snatch and grab gone wrong or a calculated assassination.

I can already see it now "they shot him in the face then dumped him at sea so you cant identify him

Truth is, this guy was never going to come out alive anyway, do you really think Osama bin wankin would allow himself to be captured alive, tossed into gitmo and gone up against a military court?

He was always gonna die anyway, and quite frankly i'd like to buy the guys who put that bullet in his head a beer.

[JPINFV]

But this is a different scenario than the one which played out today. Osama Bin Laden was continuing to wage an active war on several fronts: against the United States, against many of his own countrymen, and against peaceful, mainstream Islam everywhere. Every day he was on the loose, he was likely planning to cause future bloodshed in America, working to disrupt peace processes in the middle east, and psychologically torturing young men and women into sending themselves to their own deaths.

...

Next: the other statement that will be made by those who feel uncomfortable celebrating what happened today will be that justice cannot be served by what amounts to a battlefield killing, and that Bin Laden should have been captured, tried, and then dealt with by a court of law. To a certain extent, I agree with this, as I think many people would. As standard rules of engagement, I certainly presume that the orders of the men on the ground were to capture him if possible. But I have to say, while I’m almost always on the side of strictly upholding the rule of law, the killing of Bin Laden today was not the same as uncomfortable way in which terror suspects, many professing their innocence, have been denied due process in places like Guantanamo.

Here's my problem with the philosophy of this was planned. To me, saying it's a "kill mission" means that he could be down on his knees, hands behind his head, ready to surrender when our forces entered, and they would have turned the corner, made a positive ID, and with him surrendering still would have put 2 in the center mass. That is a kill mission. By all accounts, he fought back and was using his wife as a shield. With how it played out, regardless of an attempt to capture him or not, it would have been a clean kill. Regardless, though, capturing or killing him would have achieved the same benefit of removing him from terrorism.

Perhaps, in some technical sense, there is a similarity. But broadly and pragmatically, this is not the place to pick that fight. Osama Bin Laden had confessed in front of the whole world to both his past crimes and to his intent to commit more of them in the future. If there ever was a time when someone’s guilt was clear without need for a trial, this was one. Indeed, an attempt at a trial would likely have resorted in an enormous fiasco: Where would it be held? Whose jurisdiction and laws would apply? How could we really ensure the safety of those charged with guarding Bin Laden, or those in the jury, or really anyone in any way connected to the trial? Could we really justify putting their lives at risk in the name of giving due process in this most open-and shut of all cases?

There is always the need for a trial. When the Nazis get a trial, I find it hard to argue that anyone else shouldn't get a trial because their guilt is so obvious that it makes any verdict other than guilty out of the question. He wouldn't have been the first person to go to trial with such obvious blood on his hands, and it wouldn't be the last. Furthermore, where do you set the limit for who's crimes are so terrible and obvious that they don't deserve a trial and who's isn't that they don't deserve a trial? Heck, why did we allow Saddam to have a trial? Wasn't his crimes obvious too?

Finally, I don’t think it’s true that these celebrations are really a celebration of one man’s death. They are, to me, primarily the celebration of a stepping stone in a larger, more extensive mission: the eradication of terrorism in the world.

I do agree that our military should be used to [help] eradicate terrorism, however I don't think out military is currently geared appropriately for that goal, however that is for another thread.

[tniuqs]

quite frankly i'd like to buy the guys who put that bullet in his head a beer.

appology in advance to Kate, Mav, and Happy ... I just can't control my fingers some days.

Hell I would buy them snatch !

Dust started this ... my bad ?

Edited May 3, 2011 by tniuqs

[tniuqs]

<snip>

Very Obvious you have NO friken IDEA about CQB ... as if Osama would not be armed with an AK, hence every other point is mute, it simple we should cut out the cancers in this world.

ps We found Saddam hiding a coward in a hole like a gopher, way different.

I do agree that our military should be used to [help] eradicate terrorism, however I don't think out military is currently geared appropriately for that goal.

Well history just proved you wrong they used the sharp end of the spear ... NAVY SEALS !

Edited May 3, 2011 by tniuqs

[Happiness]

So because I don't always agree with the methods, that's somehow wrong? You have every right to disagree, and it is not wrong, it is a right.Why is it bad that I can admit that my country has done bad things in the past, and like all countries, will probably do bad things in the future?Yes your country has done bad things and Im pretty sure mine has done the same. If you think your country was wrong in killing the leader of a terrorist gang in about 40 minutes alot quicker than the years of torture he inflicked on your own countrymen then again you have that right I guess I should be ok with the slaughter and constant moving of the Indians, with slavery, with the WW2 internment camps, and with every other decision that America has made then?Why is it that when ever a debate comes up on something that is in the present time someone has to go back and bring up slavery, Indians and now the WW2 interment camp for comparison. This is comparing apples to oranges. The question is not whether bad things will happen, but how we respond, and what we recognize would be a better plan. Your right there will always be bad things and seriously how should have your country have responded to an attack on inocent civilians going about their daily activities, and I would really like a serious answer to this question and what would have been a better plan.

I fear the day that any part of the government, including and -especially- the military is beyond all reproach, because once that happens they have the ultimate power.I dont get this statement because your government and your military has the ultimate power as they are the ones that are going to protect you when people like Bin Laden attack. You would be pretty choked if they responded handing the enemy flowers right.

Also, I think you forgot how we got freedom I have never forgotten where I got my freedom from and I go to say thank you every Nov 11th.. We didn't get freedom by just going along with what ever the British military told us to do. If we had this, "Our country is never wrong. The military is never wrong. RAH! RAH! RAH!"No one in this forum said that your country or the military has never been wrong but your are the minority in this particular situation and there are alot more people that think the opposite we'd still be British.Yep and no one died in that conflict right (remember again your country was under attack) and if your country men didnt fight your right you would be British or better yet Canadian.

This is not the end of Bin Laden by any means and I personally am not a fool to think that and I dont think the citizens of the USA think it is the end. Your country is under high alert in some places but do you think behind the scenes your country was not in a high alert all the time. If you ask the average US citizen I bet you would find that they think the risk was worth it.

[uglyEMT]

Holy thread derail Batman LOL

I am not going to bite BUT will add this.

The reason this was a kill mission and not a capture mission is because of the security threat if he was captured alive. No matter what country "hosted" his detention would be at a huge security risk. The trail could never be public because it would possibly be over run to break him out.

Equating him to Nazi and the Nurenburg Trials is WAY off base. Noone fanatical was going to come overrunning the prisons to get them out or start blowing shyt up to make a point. Bin Laden would have that happening if he was left alive. Hijackings, suicide bombings, car bombs, ect ect would start up everywhere with Al Quida (sp) claming responsiblity and telling everyone it will continue until his release. Then the international backlash of people yelling to release him to make it all stop would be deafing.

The safest way and a way that would keep as many innocent civilians safe was to kill him. Yes we may see some spike in terrorism because of it, but it will die out quickly because there is no way of bringing back a dead man.

As for the jubilation in the streets, its because of the closure folks feel they got. For alot of people with him alive there was no closure. Picture that in your heart and mind for 10 years then waking up one morning and hearing the cause of all your pain and suffering was finally gone. Yes jubilation comes to mind. Same as families do in courtrooms when criminals get found guilty.

As for my opinion.. he got what was coming to him. Seal Team 6 I salute you and want to buy you all a beer.

and now a word from Toby Keith....

"Justice will be served

And the battle will rage

This big dog will fight

When you rattle his cage

And you'll be sorry that you messed with

The U.S. of A.

'cause we'll put a boot in your ass

It's the American way"

[JPINFV]

Holy thread derail Batman LOL

I am not going to bite BUT will add this.

The reason this was a kill mission and not a capture mission is because of the security threat if he was captured alive. No matter what country "hosted" his detention would be at a huge security risk. The trail could never be public because it would possibly be over run to break him out.

Equating him to Nazi and the Nurenburg Trials is WAY off base. Noone fanatical was going to come overrunning the prisons to get them out or start blowing shyt up to make a point. Bin Laden would have that happening if he was left alive. Hijackings, suicide bombings, car bombs, ect ect would start up everywhere with Al Quida (sp) claming responsiblity and telling everyone it will continue until his release. Then the international backlash of people yelling to release him to make it all stop would be deafing.

...because there will be no reprisal for killing him?

...because al Qaeda is a serious threat against, say, Guantanamo Bay or a variety of other highly secure military facilities?

The safest way and a way that would keep as many innocent civilians safe was to kill him. Yes we may see some spike in terrorism because of it, but it will die out quickly because there is no way of bringing back a dead man.

The same could be said for September 11. No amount of fighting will bring them back either. Additionally, if there's anything any movement benefits from is a martyr. Could this be al Qaeda's Alamo?

As for the jubilation in the streets, its because of the closure folks feel they got. For alot of people with him alive there was no closure. Picture that in your heart and mind for 10 years then waking up one morning and hearing the cause of all your pain and suffering was finally gone. Yes jubilation comes to mind. Same as families do in courtrooms when criminals get found guilty.

Let's execute everyone in prison then, so that way everyone can have closure. Justice is closure. Killing is only closure if done in the name of justice, but is not by default justice.

[uglyEMT]

...because there will be no reprisal for killing him?

I did say we would see a spike but it will be short lived no sustained.

...because al Qaeda is a serious threat against, say, Guantanamo Bay or a variety of other highly secure military facilities?

No they are a threat to airlines, palces of worship, malls, stores, buildings... if He is alive the bombings would be to civilian targets to "force" a release. Just like in the 80s with all the airline hijackings to free high value targets.

The same could be said for September 11. No amount of fighting will bring them back either. Additionally, if there's anything any movement benefits from is a martyr. Could this be al Qaeda's Alamo?

Not really, He was the glue that held them together. Without him I think their "heart" is gone. It shows their failabilty. Not saying they wont try but dont think it would be sustained. As for the 9/11 reference I don't see your point? I said because He was dead they have nothing to fight for. Our military wasn't fighting "for" 9/11 we were fighting to stop future terror operations.

Let's execute everyone in prison then, so that way everyone can have closure. Justice is closure. Killing is only closure if done in the name of justice, but is not by default justice.

Ummm what does what this have to do with what I said? You hear families in courts applaud when a criminal gets a guilty verdict wether it be 1yr or life or the death penalty. Justice is closure. Didn't we do this in the name of justice?

Im sorry that your are offended that one of the most evil persons in the world was killed instead of paraded infront of a judge for a lengthy trial that would have caused more issues, gave him a platform to spew more hatered, cause grief, security issues, and possible terror to innocent people then at the end of all that after millions are spent be found guilty and given a death penalty that would be appealed more lengthy time and finally one day be killed by whatever form of capitol punishment was issued. I like their way, .223 to the left eye and chest about 1 buck worth of ammo.