I’m generally opposed to the death penalty, for what I think are pretty good reasons. But in my heart, I’m not completely opposed to it. That’s because there are people I really want killed — people like Osama bin Laden.
Ordinary criminals don’t have that effect on me. Oh, If I read about someone who committed a horrible home invasion murder, at some point I’ll probably wish him dead, but that’s just a passing reaction. And when death penalty proponents ask me what I’d want to happen to someone who killed my wife, I have no problem answering that I’d want blood vengeance. But I also have no problem understanding why I’m not the right person to make that decision.
When it comes to tyrants, however, I really want them to die. Osama bin Laden (a minor tyrant, but still a tyrant) got what he deserved. So did Saddam Hussein. And so did Nicolae Ceaușescu, Benito Mussolini, and every other executed tyrant going back to Caligula. That Josef Stalin died in bed at the age of 74 is a damned shame.
I’m not claiming that killing tyrants should be part of U.S. foreign policy. I’m not even claiming that I have a clear reason for making an exception for tyrants in my opposition to the death penalty. The best I can come up with is that the death penalty debate is about the appropriate policy for governments to follow when dealing with evil people, whereas “Death to Tyrants” is about what to do when the governments themselves are evil.
I can’t pretend to have a good defense for this reaction. If serial killers and wife beaters and gangbangers aren’t deterred by the possibility of execution, it’s hard to imagine that the threat of death would deter people who run their own government.
Yet, in my heart, I still say “Death to Tyrants.”
I know this is a topic we have some disagreement about, and thought about your possible reaction. As you know, I still dislike the notion of murder being a solution to any problem beyond some form of self-defense. To be honest, I didn’t think you would apply this argument in this situation.
“Osama bin Laden (a minor tyrant, but still a tyrant) got what he deserved.”
…
“Death to Tyrants” is about what to do when the governments themselves are evil.”
Is Al Qaeda a government? Bin Laden was not suppressing his own people, but terrorizing others.
Saddam Hussein certainly qualified for the title. I’m not so sure about bin Laden.
This post was mostly about me trying to work out some ideas in my head. Osama was an enemy of democracy who sought to impose Islamic law wherever he could in hope of restoring the caliphate. I don’t recall hearing if he had an opinion on who the Caliph should be, but I think I can guess. He seems to have made attempts to bring al-Qaeda to power in the Sudan and Afghanistan. He was not a successful tyrant, but he seemed to have a tyrant’s ambitions. Certainly he was more than a common criminal or even a common terrorist.
OK, fair enough. Let’s work out some ideas.
The phrase “failed tyrant” is an extension beyond the the “what to do when the governments themselves are evil” statement. Now you are in an even more gray area when trying to determine who it is acceptable to kill.
George Lincoln Rockwell was certainly a failed tyrant, and I’m also not sad that he was assassinated, yet I would not have called for his death just because he was a failed tyrant. (Sorry; Godwin fly-ball to left field…) If He would have killed others, would that have made his assassination justified?
How about Ted Kaczynski, who was even more of a failure at being a tyrant, but did manage to kill and maim?
Osama bin Laden certainly was no “common” criminal or terrorist, and was way more evil that these two lame examples of failed tyrants. The efforts made to hunt him down demonstrate that. It’s understandable to want him dead. To rationalize that desire by calling him a failed tyrant is, however, a bit of a stretch.
You may be diluting the “Death to Tyrants” copyright in this instance.
You might be right. “Death to Tyrants” may limit the scope more than I seem to want to. I think part of the distinction I’m trying to limn is between people living under the law and people living beyond the law.
Part of the reason we form governments is to put the power of retribution and deterrence in the hands of a neutral party. When someone wrongs us, instead of availing ourself of our natural right to vengeance, we let the law and government act on our behalf in the interest of reducing overall strife. We accept that the law is imperfect, and that people sometimes get away with crimes, but that is part of living in a society ruled by law.
However, if someone succeeds in placing themself above the law, or outside the law, or whatever you want to call it, then they have breached the social contract that created the law, and therefore they no longer deserve its protection. This is not some bright line distinction. Just because some cop or politician is getting away with stuff doesn’t mean we can shoot them: A flawed system of law is still a system of law. But at some point, it may get so bad that we can no longer tolerate it. It may get so bad that we need no longer tolerate it. This was the justification for shooting British soldiers at Lexington and Concord, and it may be the justification for shooting people like Osama bin Laden, who manipulated and corrupted governments to place himself beyond the orderly justice of civilization.