Death of a Terrorist

It is almost impossible to feel any sorrow or regret when it is announced that someone who has committed the sort of atrocities that are attributed to the chief terrorist in Iraq, has died.

Yet there is something that just does not feel right whenever I hear the news or listen the posturing of the world leaders who have been paraded across the screens of our media exhorting the death of this terrible person.

I am not sure what it is that causes me so much concern.

When I reflect on my issues I keep coming up with a picture of the old west as it has been portrayed by American movies and the sight of a "‘wanted dead or alive"’ poster is what springs to mind.

In todayÂ’s society I suppose we still have bounties that are placed on the head of people in every country including Australia. You can go to any police station and see posters that offer a reward for information about the whereabouts of individuals. However I have not seen the posters that promise a financial reward placed on the head of an individual whether it is alive or dead. That surely happens only in the movies.

Well, perhaps not any more.

The high school drop out who became the blatant terrorist and killer that led the insurgency in Iraq had a 300 million dollar bounty on his head. Dead or Alive. He apparently came from Jordan and I am sure we will discover in the days to come how his early life experiences influenced his rise to become a terrorist and fight for his beliefs, however mistaken some will feel these might have been.

The fact that he kidnapped innocent people and publicly executed them by means of a televised beheading is surely one of the more revolting and inexcusable crimes that one can imagine. So why is it that I feel such unease at what has happened? Why is it that I feel so squeamish about two F 16 aircraft being targeted to bomb him and his cohorts out of existence?

On the one hand anyone who engages in the sort of barbaric acts that are attributed to the terrorists in Iraq should not be permitted to continue to perform further such acts and if they are killed I guess I am not one who will mourn their demise.

On the other hand . . ..

Someone, no doubt, got rich identifying the hiding place of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. When they were captured they were put on trial and are going through due process as we speak. Of course I am aware that when the war on Iraq commenced the first act of the war was a strike by US aircraft attempting to take out the leadership of Iraq. So there is some precedent for all of this.

In this case though there was no attempt made at capturing this individual so that he could face trial for what were undoubtedly heinous crimes. Instead, two F 16's with appropriate super accurate bombs on board were targeted to take out an entire building in which it was known he was and not only took him out, but also any sundry associates.

Looked at from one angle, —it was a military strike at the leadership of the opposing commander of a warlike group and it was successful. Similar strikes have been initiated by countries at war in the past and have been considered legitimate. One only has to see the strike on Erwin Rommel in the 2nd World War as an example.

So why do I feel squeamish about this strike?

I suspect that it is because those of us who are supposedly part of the civilized world are having to resort to the same level of behaviour that is being used by the terrorists. We are willing to hand out summary justice to someone who is a criminal and use all of the forces of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet to do so.

We do not try and arrest the man and try him we just go in and bomb him to hell and beyond regardless of what I am sure will be called '‘collateral damage'’, along the way.

Somehow I have this vision that in the future it might also be considered OK for a very rich person to offer a bounty on the head of someone he dislikes and thereby initiate a search and destroy mission that will eliminate the person in question. To go from the sublime to the ridiculous I can see a sort of '‘pay as you go'’ military where for a 'fee'’ you can engage to have an F 16 deliver your payload to eliminate anyone you deem fit.

The question is whether or not the principles are right or not. Once we agree that it is OK to do this to one person then how do we set the limits as to when it is OK and when it is not?

I honestly do not know the answer to this question and I suspect that we have some difference between what happens in a war and what happens in a normal civil society in which policing is more appropriate. What is Iraq and what are the terrorists? Are they and the civilian populations in which they operate part of a war zone or are they part of a civil society?

I am happy for others to comment on my sense of unease.