ShareThisCan the end justify the means?
On Sunday evening, May 1st, President Obama announced to the world that America’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden was dead. It was the kind of news that most Americans and democratic nations all over the world welcome with much jubilation and for reasons most everyone, except a few, could easily relate to.
Not that these few were sympathetic to bin Laden for they, too, wanted him brought to justice. But that’s the difference – they wanted bin Laden captured instead of killed, or in their own word, executed.
Filmmaker Michael Moore, a liberal, is among these advocates of international law and justice. In the midst of America’s triumph and feeling of vindication, Moore’s dissenting voice offered a starting point of real discussion. It gives pundits and ordinary citizens alike a reason to pause and examine the ramifications of an act committed beyond our country’s borders. Blogger Liam Fox of “News Junkie” pointed out the significance of Moore’s position. He wrote,
He distinguished himself during a week of mindless, unquestioning propaganda, and an overwhelming willingness to avoid questions regarding America’s increasingly common practice of invading other countries and carrying out assassinations. He had the courage to stand on principle when others seemed all too willing to simply pursue ratings.
This fact alone Makes Michael Moore’s voice all the more important. When an entire nation begins to suffer from ‘group think,’ the value of the dissenter increases exponentially. The insistence that those things that may appeal emotionally to a blind sense of patriotism must be reconciled with the principles enshrined in the laws and constitution of the country can not be allowed to be ignored or silenced by the national media… and, most certainly, should not be mocked, belittled, and insulted, by the President.
Are the likes of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Liam Fox and others like them too idealistic and detached from reality to recognize the worst threats bin Laden’s presence evoked? On the other hand, are they simply being consistently principled, lawful and truthful?
Still, is employing extreme measures to remove the constant threat to millions of innocent lives not good enough excuse for an exception in the implementation of a law? Should President Obama’s order to kill bin Laden be criticized rather than praised? Can the end justify the means?
True, the President overstepped his bounds when he ordered to get bin Laden in Pakistan, another sovereign nation where the U.S. or any other country has no right to go in and execute someone.
True, the rule of law makes no individual exceptions even where the worst criminal is the subject. However, a leader is expected to protect his country and his people. If he must employ extreme measures to get rid of the danger, he would do so. There would be criticisms but the reward far outweighs them.
So, does the end justify the means? Not really. But reaping and enjoying the benefits of this end doesn’t need any justifying…