RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Excerpt: "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."

Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)
Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)

My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

By Noam Chomsky, Reader Supported News

07 May 11


We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

t's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+170 # countrygirl 2011-05-07 16:54
Heartfelt thanks to you, Noam Chomsky. You speak my mind.
+36 # janes 2011-05-08 08:39
ditto...i realize this was a cheaper and more expedient way to handle Osama, but it certainly does not add up to due process.
-77 # in deo veritas 2011-05-08 10:08
Screw due process! What due process did the victims of 9/11 get? What due process are the people losing their homes getting? What due process do the homeless get? Seems like this is a right reserved for the criminal element particularly the corporate fascist ruling class.
+101 # frharry 2011-05-08 11:57
Quoting in deo veritas:
Screw due process! What due process did the victims of 9/11 get? What due process are the people losing their homes getting? What due process do the homeless get? Seems like this is a right reserved for the criminal element particularly the corporate fascist ruling class.

While I share your outrage about the lack of due process for the evicted and the homeless, the implication that wrongdoing in one sector somehow justifies wrongdoing in another is logically flawed, not to mention ethically. Everyone deserves due process. If it does not work for the worst of us, it cannot be depended upon for the best of us.
+19 # TruthMakesPeace 2011-05-09 11:24
Quoting in deo veritas:
Screw due process! What due process did the victims of 9/11 get?
This is EXACTTLY why we have a Court system, to avoid lynching without a trial. The Department of Justice never indicted Bin Laden for 9/11, nor was 9/11 mentioned on his wanted poster. There are other suspects of organizing 9/11 with a lot more means, motives, opportunity, money, and technology.
+18 # feloneouscat 2011-05-09 15:06
What justice did my father get who was a survivor of the Oklahoma City bombing? Oh, yeah, there was a trial and Nichols and McVeigh were convicted.

Wow, that "innocent till proven guilty" DOES seem to work! Perhaps we should try it more often...
+26 # josephhill 2011-05-09 12:39
Just think...There's probably no honest reason in the world why this sort of commando mission couldn't have been done 9 years ago....without declaring war and invading Afghanistan. But then again, wars are great for business, and that's what "our" foreign policy is all about. Didn't any among the "Democrats" (with the exception of Feingold, Kucinich and a handful of others) notice that Mr. Bush was trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer?
+10 # feloneouscat 2011-05-09 15:25
Actually, if memory serves, Clinton WANTED to go after bin Laden but was opposed... by the Republicans. I believe their reason was that they saw no reason to do so...
-1 # dimitra 2011-05-10 17:24
I think that your memory, unfortunately, is not working well.
Al Qaida and Clinton worked very well together during Bosnia and Kosovo, sending moujahedin volunteers, arming them, etc.
Have you heard that four 9/11 terrorists were Bosnia war veterans? Majority of Madrid and London bombers also, plus a few were in KLA!!! Btw, bin Laden was a proud carrier of Bosnian passport.... Things are, obviously, much dirtier that we can even imagine.
0 # Afra 2011-07-13 17:12
Quoting Activista:
Chomsky analysis is perfect - Bush, Obama double-speak is unbearable.
O.K. - we assassinated the old guy - did not thank him for his glorious young days as Reagan freedom fighter when he was killing Afghan invaders (Soviets) - but his death NOW did not change anything. We are wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq - and waste goes on.

Quoting countrygirl:
Heartfelt thanks to you, Noam Chomsky. You speak my mind.

Quoting countrygirl:
Heartfelt thanks to you, Noam Chomsky. You speak my mind.

Quoting countrygirl:
Heartfelt thanks to you, Noam Chomsky. You speak my mind.

Yes, He speaks the minds of millions of middle Eastern people , Who have been tortured, killed, terrorized, vanished , executed, exiled by all of United State's appointed dictators and their dictatorship governments and Islamic fundamentalists creatures like KHOMEINI, TALIBAN, ..
US does not bring any democracy and freedome to anyone and anywhere except war, horrors , killing millions of indecent people. So no one believes all fabricated CIA's shows ...
-118 # Alejandro 2011-05-07 20:05
Well Dr. Chomsky, I've gotta say I believe your wrong on this one. Although your right that it was an assasination plain and simple. I don't see any other way that Justice could have been served.

You must agree that Mr. bin-laden had the where-withall to deni and defend himself in a court of law, being that he was a member of one of the most wealthy and influential families in the entire world. I can't say and I don't think any body can, that he was the sole planner of 9/11. I would bet that he was a the bankroller of the project and the Leader of Al-Queda at the time. He could have talked to any number of journalists and denied the alligations against him. He could have hired the most talented defence lawyers money can buy. And he didn't.

A not guilty verdict; even a guilty verdict in the World-Court at the Hague would have done more damage to American influence through out the world then any number of terrorist acts.

Finally Dr. Chomsky, with all due respect, on this one, I think you got it wrong...
+81 # CTPatriot 2011-05-08 02:07
Great! So from now on, any time there is a suspect who we are certain is guilty (because the government and media told us so, thus it must be true) but who has the wherewithal to mount a defense that might result in his being found not guilty, we should just forget the right to a trial and execute them.

I guess we could start with Wall Street and the Bankers since they have at last as much money to defend themselves with as Osama bin Laden had. If we play our cards right, we could probably get rid of the DoJ completely and save a lot of tax dollars.

And since you seem to be such a great judge of guilt, I'm sure having studied all the evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11 (something the FBI has not even done yet), we could appoint you to give a thumbs up or thumbs down as to who gets executed.
-36 # chris eberle 2011-05-08 14:02
He admitted his guilt publicly in his videos. Wake up!!!!!
+23 # aprogressive 2011-05-08 14:16
That is why one should read ALL an article, see below

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of binLaden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

Quoting chris eberle:
He admitted his guilt publicly in his videos. Wake up!!!!!
+4 # Scalawag 2011-05-08 20:05
which is why it's important to verify the facts for oneself for oneself instead of relying on their favorite intellectual as an infallible source.

On May 23 2006 OBL released a message stating among other things "I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers -- Allah have mercy upon them -- with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission,"

That's a lot more than "boast[ing] of what he regarded as a great achievement."

Chomsky blew it.

+4 # bak 2011-05-09 14:07
you take as proof as the statement you quoted. and it was released in 2 0 0 6??

are you in the market to buy any real estate?
-1 # Scalawag 2011-05-10 10:44
I do not take it as "proof" I take as a clear admission of responsibility.

Just as a take his statement from Oct 29 2004 that "as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

And that "we had agreed with the Commander-Gener al Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."

Both messages were widely reported when they were released.

Chomsky (and you) seemed to have missed them.
-7 # Chas 2011-05-08 22:37
"Confessing" to doing something you did not do in both situations come with consequences. If one were to usurp someone else's sporting accomplishments than that person should be punished by being evinced non-violently (Boston Marathon). If someone takes credit for a deadly and horrific action and then uses this to build his own profile and recruit terrorists than he should be killed as an act of war (9/11). In my eyes, he gave up the need for us to care if he is guilty or not because of the way that he used the notoriety.

Another, these are not police men trying to apprehend citizens but soldiers storming a seemingly well defensed compound hiding the most wanted man in the world. Making this a capture mission sounds risky to say the least.
+13 # josephhill 2011-05-09 12:01
"Another, these are not police men trying to apprehend citizens but soldiers storming a seemingly well defensed compound hiding the most wanted man in the world. Making this a capture mission sounds risky to say the least."

So, with all their state-of-the-ar t equipment, these guys didn't have tasers...or concussion grenades...or tear gas? The last thing "our" government wanted was for OBL to be taken alive. "Dead men don't tell tales."
-8 # GEB 2011-05-09 17:15
Tasers, concussion grenades, tear gas!? Please! How about some negotiators? Maybe OBL would have just come quietly if we'd only asked nicely. While I don't completely approve of the whole process, and I strongly disapprove with the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, I have no sympathy for the taking of Bin Laden. Hauling him out in handcuffs for formal charges and a trial was not a viable option. I'm sorry, but the victims of his (yes, his) 911 attacks were shown no mercy or due process.
+1 # dimitra 2011-05-10 21:47
OMG! So, you THINK that the basic principles of law - of civilized society, shouldn't be applied in this particular case... But, you disapprove terrible violation of the same law regarding Sadam...

So, what decides when the law should be applied? When you are directly affected? On days when your morning coffee is not great? When it is raining? .....
-4 # Robert Griffin 2011-05-11 22:23
If we are unable to try those held at Gitmo here, how could we try bin Ladin here? I would have preferred a trial in 2001 or 2002, but we are now too divided as a nation to be able to do that. And he was already known to be responsible for the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998
+1 # Robert Griffin 2011-05-11 22:19
Due to the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, he was indicted on charges of terrorism.
-1 # George V. Williams 2011-06-05 08:38
Excellent commentary! Loved it!! Keep it up. Please.
+62 # Ralph Averill 2011-05-08 04:12
".... even a guilty verdict in the World-Court at the Hague would have done more damage to American influence through out the world then any number of terrorist acts."
The trial itself would have done the damage, regardless of the verdict. That is why OBL was assassinated. An open trial would have exposed many more crimes than those of al Qaeda.
-1 # dimitra 2011-05-10 21:50
Absolutely WRONG! One can be a leader by example, by showing greatness, civility, and respect for principles they preach, or by brutal force, and by spreading fear... Historia est magistra vitae!
+2 # khidr786 2011-05-08 05:29
tell us precisely what evidence You know of the gov't/media has offered supporting its bin laden/'al-qaeda ' conspiracy theory
+75 # Glen 2011-05-08 06:22
If you will do a bit of research on bin Laden, Alejandro, you will come to understand that your description of what he would have done in a court of law was not his style at all. In fact, I would just bet he would have killed himself rather than to submit to being flaunted by the U.S.

The U.S. has already done more damage to American influence in the world than bin Laden ever dreamed of maybe causing. I say 'maybe' because there is no proof of anything, other than what our own government has outlined.

The U.S. has wantonly assassinated many world leaders after their usefulness was over, or because the government deemed another leader much more willing to do their bidding. Some of those leaders then proceeded to kill thousands and the U.S. let it happen.

Just how much credibility does the U.S. really have?
+61 # in deo veritas 2011-05-08 10:13
We had none left by the time Bush left office.
-1 # Robert Griffin 2011-05-11 22:26
Is there any counter-evidenc e regarding the embassy bombings?
+5 # Glen 2011-05-13 05:29
Am not certain. There are many who don't trust anything reported concerning many events, though, due to the CIA, for one group, perpetrating these crimes then blaming a particular group or individual for it, as when they planned the coup on Chavez. I read an article on Iraq during the years of Hussein, in which the author maintains the CIA killed many of the people Hussein was blamed for. The British have been caught in Iraq posing as Iraqis, lobbing rockets at the U.S. and British troops. Israelis have also been revealed as lobbing rockets into Israel from Palestine.

The situation is too complex and deadly.
+77 # frharry 2011-05-08 12:03
"A not guilty verdict; even a guilty verdict in the World-Court at the Hague would have done more damage to American influence through out the world then any number of terrorist acts."

What's troubling about this response is the apparent presumption that the US could not have proven a case against Bin Laden successfully. If that is the case (and I am not at all sure I agree that it would have been) then simply killing him outright would be even LESS legally or morally justified, right?

Moreover, if US "influence throughout the world" would suffer due to an inability to successfully prosecute and punish Osama Bin Laden, perhaps that ought to be a signal that we need to reconsider our presence in the world. People danced in the streets on 9-11 for a reason. I do not for one second think such conduct is defensible. But having been to a number of third world countries and seen US military and global corporate interests at work, I can readily understand how the resentment engendered by those intervening forces might produce the reactions we saw. The argument that people resent us for our freedoms is simplistic and unfounded. They resent us for the abrogation of THEIR freedoms.
+16 # Shea Brown 2011-05-08 13:45
Well said sir.
+47 # Savas 2011-05-08 12:23
What I understand from your comment is since Binladen's guilt for 9/11 attacks was obvious, there's no need to trial him, so killing him will be good enough... Does this also apply to George Bush? Who's guilt is also obvious regarding thousands of Iraqis who were murdered, and many others around the world?
+16 # GE 2011-05-08 16:45
[quote name="Alejandro "] I don't see any other way that Justice could have been served.
The mafia usually
pursues 'justice' by dumping bodies in the sea and wherever. The drug lords may dump you in a land fill. But really, is this the kind of 'justice' that we should emulate? What if every criminal in a jail cell invokes this definition of justice in their defense?
I never expected a lawyer to equate revenge with 'justice'- in such an unprofessional manner. What' s on the curriculum in law school?
-5 # Redman Gump 2011-05-08 23:30
Confessional: Bless me, RSN, for I have sinned in following the false conclusions of the well known public intellectual Noam Chomsky. This is sometimes called "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, or, at a more ludicrous level "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy.

I now know that Prof. (Emeritus) Chomsky hast willfully conspired to make me believe the incredible and laughably false stories regarding the livelihood, whereabouts, and activities of one "Osama Bin Laden", fmr. US/CIA ally in the 1980s Afghan-Soviet war, from 2001-2011.

I know not his motives for this undertaking, and do not pretend otherwise. While I do not particularly like being fooled, I take fully responsibility for my own false beliefs.
+112 # Activista 2011-05-07 21:13
Chomsky analysis is perfect - Bush, Obama double-speak is unbearable.
O.K. - we assassinated the old guy - did not thank him for his glorious young days as Reagan freedom fighter when he was killing Afghan invaders (Soviets) - but his death NOW did not change anything. We are wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq - and waste goes on.
+19 # will 2011-05-07 22:39
I think it is naive for use to accept the government's assertion that Bin Laden was killed in the raid.

IThe logical course would have been to instruct the commandos to capture Obama alive at all costs, and to kill any witnesses that saw him captured.

Then the logical thing to do would be to dump a bag of garbage into the Atlantic, in view of the crew of the ship, and announce to the world that Osama was dead and buried.

Then the logical thing would be to interrogate Bin Laden using all the horrible techniques developed at Guantanamo, with no knowledge or criticism from the rest of the world.

Why kill the most important intelligence goldmine in US history?

I believe a very unhappy Bin Laden is sitting in a room somewhere and a bag of garbage is at the bottom of the Atlantic.
-3 # wei 2011-05-07 23:32
I think "will" is exactly right. It would have been the most terrible thing for the US to have done (dumping the corpse of a dead person into the sea to feed the fish). But I tend to believe it is all CIA smoke and deception: they have taken away Bin Laden alive, killed someone else who looked like him in front of his daughter brutally, and dumped a bag of trash into the ocean later on.
-1 # c 2011-05-09 23:11
Oh, good god- g
ive it a break
+10 # Green Genius 2011-05-08 00:22
Except that his daughter saw him get shot.
+5 # DesignCreature 2011-05-08 11:10
And now the USA wants to take her and the three widows into custody? God help the women and girl if this happens.
0 # haleygavin 2011-05-22 13:39
How much did they pay the girl to lie? Was he shot in the arm, carried off, still alive. Who really bombed the twin towers? To make a war, so that we could have an excuse to murder to get more oil.
+7 # Activista 2011-05-08 11:22
Would like to hear the story of 12 year old - doubt that "free" World will EVER find.
+4 # khidr786 2011-05-08 05:33
at least You're thinking...but a very unhappy bl sitting in a room somewhere would be able to announce his continued existence to the world and give the lie to his assassination-f abrication....n ot so a long-dead bl, which seems far more likely, if You check the evidence for this...
+43 # genierae 2011-05-08 05:39
will: Torture is not "logical", it doesn't work and it creates very bad karma for the torturers. Those who are being tortured will say anything to stop it, usually lies and distortions. Torture also serves as a recruiting tool for al Quaeda and creates much suffering for our troops abroad when they are captured. Most important, it is an abomination to cause such harm to other human beings, we are not monsters! What kind of world do you want to live in? I want to live in a world that condemns torture and punishes those who commit it. People like you are dragging this country down into the gutter. Wake up!
+20 # Sarah 2011-05-08 10:05
#genierae, I don't think that "will" was supporting torture. To the contrary, he was saying that this is what would be "logical" for the US to do, within it's own twisted perspective.

It's interesting... A few days ago I gave the Bush assassination example to a college language class that i teach, and several students' response was that that would be fine with them because Bush deserves it (but that Bin Laden deserved it too). What to make of this new, War on Terror-infused logic of liberal equivalences that bypasses the rule of law altogether? Almost makes me nostalgic for the Enlightenment.
+4 # genierae 2011-05-09 08:36
Sarah: When "will" used the word logical I understood his meaning to be that which comes from sound reasoning. To me, logic is a straightforward process, not a twisted one, and anyone who is sane enough to think logically will not arrive at the conclusion that torture is a productive activity. Therefore, those who approve of it are NOT thinking reasonably, they are not being logical....Abou t your students, I wonder if you have any idea if those who approve of torture are Republicans? I bet most of them are, or at the very least, they were raised in Republican housholds. Democrats are much more in touch with their consciences and so most of them would never, under any circumstances, approve of torture. (I am an Independent.)
-2 # caz 2011-05-09 11:19
It's not exactly fair of you to assume the moral compass/how in touch an individual is with their conscience based on their political leanings/upbrin gings. Talk about assuming the quality of a person based off of blanket perceptions. You'll recall that information regarding Osama bin Laden's courier came from the 'interrogation' of prisoners at Gitmo, under Obama - a Democrat. You just have to look at this chart, provided by the Washington Post: to see that what your black and white stereotype has significant shades of gray. I'm not making judgement calls on Republicans or Democrats (or even Independents), I'm merely suggesting that your comment was hugely presumptuous.
+1 # genierae 2011-05-11 18:06
My comment is based on my observations for many years, and even studies of the brain show that Republicans are instinctively fearful, while Democrats' basic instincts are courageous. They also care about the poor, and this can only come from the conscience. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule and there are Democrats who are DINOs, and Republicans who are RINOs. Where do you get your "proof" that anyone was waterboarded at Gitmo since Obama became president? I think you're wrong about that. My "black and white sterotype" is based on fact, not opinion. Republicans are against social programs that help those in need, they want to abolish Medicare, Social Security, and do away with food stamps, cut unemployment compensation, destroy public schools, etc. Then they want to give all their stolen money to their rich owners. Observations are not judgment calls and "I'm merely suggesting that your comment was hugely" biased toward Republicans. This tells me that your mind is closed. Too bad. You need to get in touch with your conscience.
+6 # Shea Brown 2011-05-08 13:48
You write; "Then the logical thing would be to interrogate Bin Laden using all the horrible techniques developed at Guantanamo, with no knowledge or criticism from the rest of the world."

What an excellent point ! Why kill Osama at all if he really is the mastermind of international terrorism ? What better way to use this opportunity? You sir, have a brain !!
+5 # GG 2011-05-08 16:01
Quoting will:
I think it is naive for use to accept the government's assertion that Bin Laden was killed in the raid.

IThe logical course would have been to instruct the commandos to capture Obama alive at all costs, and to kill any witnesses that saw him captured.

Then the logical thing to do would be to dump a bag of garbage into the Atlantic, in view of the crew of the ship, and announce to the world that Osama was dead and buried.

Then the logical thing would be to interrogate Bin Laden using all the horrible techniques developed at Guantanamo, with no knowledge or criticism from the rest of the world.

Why kill the most important intelligence goldmine in US history?

I believe a very unhappy Bin Laden is sitting in a room somewhere and a bag of garbage is at the bottom of the Atlantic.

Quoting chris eberle:
He admitted his guilt publicly in his videos. Wake up!!!!!

Well I believe there are two Bin Ladens. There is the Bin Laden with an oval face and another one with a round facial structure. Have another look, folks.
0 # Tim Bickford 2011-05-08 20:51
It seems to me the take Alex Jones has pontificated makes the most sense. The disease Osama bin laden had and was treated for for the most part dictated that he was dead in the early 2000's. The theory that he was kept on ice for nearly a decade would be a good reason for disposing of a corpse at sea and fabricating a politically favorable story.

The Towers did not fall from aircraft and jet fuel, another obvious fabrication. Nano Thermite found in the dust along with the volume of molten metal pooled in the footprint prove planned professional demolition. Any other assertions are smoke and mirrors.
+6 # GEB 2011-05-09 17:21
Wow! As liberal as I am. And I'm quite liberal. It's as depressing to read off-the-wall left-wing conspiracy theories as it is to read right-wing off-the-wall conspiracy theories.
-8 # Bip 2011-05-09 22:09
Geb. Admit it, you're a nutter yourself, and phony as it gets.
-8 # Bip 2011-05-09 22:11

Admit it, you're a nutter yourself, and a fake, Mr. Ad hominem.
0 # c 2011-05-09 23:09
I am sorry you feel that way. OBL is dead.
+80 # billy bob 2011-05-07 22:41
I'm thankful that Noam Chomsky exists.
+22 # KarlawithaK 2011-05-08 07:13
We can only imagine and speculate about the real story. We will never know. But it seems highly likely to me that what we were told is very different from what happened. Perhaps Osama BinLaden has really been dead for some time and the powers that be hid the news just to keep popular support for a very profitable war. Thank goodness for people like Noam Chomsky who have the courage and way with words to give us balance in our thinking.
-3 # Perilous 2011-05-07 22:42
Flawed analysis at best, and all over the place. I usually agree with much of what Mr. Chomsky has to say, but not this time. I think it is a one-sided, shallow view he's taken here.

And to be perfectly honest, I would have no problem if they'd done the same thing to George W. Bush. They'd have saved us a hell of a lot of heartache, and he richly deserves the same fate.
0 # forparity 2011-05-08 00:43
Sorry, but he was busy last week, out with the wounded soldiers, doing a 100 mile bike ride thru Big Bend National Park, with his heros.

One can only imagine how high the Navy Seals hold President Bush.
+3 # in deo veritas 2011-05-08 10:18
Love the sarcasm!
-6 # forparity 2011-05-08 12:26

I can only imagine what the Navy Seals would like to do with someone like Perilous.
-59 # Ashok Gulati 2011-05-07 22:49
I agree this was an assassination - no doubt about that!
But to demand 'legal' proof? That would let off half of the terrorists in the world - especially the masterminds and behind the scene planners. There can only be circumstantial evidence - which is not accepted in most courts.
I am no fan of George Bush, but by no stretch of imagination can one equate him with Osama bin Laden.
Are you implying that Osama is not a terrorist, since that too has not been proven in any court of law!
+16 # PIANOSEEDS 2011-05-08 00:45
Ahok Gulati, FYI circumstantial evidence IS admissible in courts of law.
+33 # CTPatriot 2011-05-08 01:58
It must suck to live in a country where some people insist that the constitution is more than just "a goddamned piece of paper." Some of us still believe in the contents of that document, like innocent until proven guilty, the right to a trial, and arcane things like that.

By the way, murderers and other criminals are routinely tried and convicted based on circumstantial evidence. You apparently don't know much about our court system.
+6 # Elizabeth 2011-05-08 23:22
The U.S. Constitution has no rights for crime victims. Look it up: the ACLU wrote a book on this. Legally the "victim" is society. In cases where an individual is not popular, then "society" can neglect to prosecute a perpetrator. If "society" wants to put a group in a concentration camp, our U.S. Constitution in no way would stop "society" from doing so: as long as society is careful not to call the group "criminal" (because criminals do have individual rights). Yes, the U.S. Constitution is a piece of paper. I am a rape victim, and went through every wrong that the Constitution has. So, wave the flag, but don't get high and mighty about it. The evidence beyond a confession? All the connections: organized crime. I would have no problem with a criminal trial; I'm sure OBL's wives will face criminal charges.
+7 # Luciana 2011-05-08 02:19
But to demand 'legal' proof? That would let off half of the terrorists in the world - especially the masterminds and behind the scene planners. There can only be circumstantial evidence - which is not accepted in most courts....Are you implying that Osama is not a terrorist, since that too has not been proven in any court of law!

Osama bin Laden was never tried in a court of law for 9/11 partly because that incident wasn't treated as a criminal act (as it should have been) but as an act of war.
+5 # jchere 2011-05-08 10:43
Luciana: Sorry, I must have missed Congress doing it's Constitutional required declairation of war against the country of OBL.
+11 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 11:42
You missed it because it never existed. Not against Serbia, nor against Iraq, nor against Afghanistan, nor against Libya, nor against Pakistan - despite the fact that the US Attorney General has said that the killing of bin Laden was done as an act of war against an enemy commander, and is therefore justified.
0 # forparity 2011-05-08 15:20
Ah - he actually declared war against us - 1996 - 1998 - and then he started carrying out his many threats, culminating in 9/11 - and much much more around the world.

It's on video tape - it was distributed in written form - and he acted on it - and then he took credit for it.
+3 # feloneouscat 2011-05-09 15:19
If Joe Bob in Texas declares war against the United States how in any shape or form does that make him into "an enemy commander"?

It doesn't.

The acts of bin Laden were nothing more than criminal - he wasn't an enemy commander, he wasn't a leader of a country, he was just a criminal. Hell, he wasn't even Goldfinger (although I still have to laugh at one drawing of bin Laden's underground lair that had everything save the shark tank).

And we STILL have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty" - or do we just do away with that as well?
+16 # Elene 2011-05-08 16:13
"The country of OBL" is Saudi Arabia, is it not? The same country many of the 9/11 perpetrators came from? A country we'll never attack, and barely even criticize, because it's such a great "friend" to us?
-1 # forparity 2011-05-08 22:11
No it is not. Osama was expelled from his family. He was kicked out of his family business. Osama was expelled from Saudi Arabia.

Thinking that way, is akin to being a birther, or a 9/11 inside job conspirator nut.
+5 # gg 2011-05-08 02:47
huh? every jury trial in the u.s. the judge instructs that circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence
+42 # Ralph Averill 2011-05-08 04:20
I believe the implication was that if OBL was a criminal, George W. Bush was a far bigger one. A theory to which I and many others subscribe.
+10 # khidr786 2011-05-08 05:37
why did the fbi never charge obl with the 9/11 crimes, saying it had no hard evidence for this? all You had to do was look at the fbi obl page...why do You but the recent assassination narrative, offered by those who show ho evidence, are inveterate liars, and have the most to gain by this particular lie?...same as the 9/11 Official Story...when will we learn...
+60 # genierae 2011-05-08 06:15
Ashok Gulati: Osama bin Laden was radicalized in Afghanistan when the US government used him and then betrayed him, he had solid reasons for his hatred of us. And you need to take a better look at the actions of W. for the eight years he was in office. Compared to him bin Laden is an amateur. Two unnecessary wars that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, thousands of our soldiers, and destroyed the infrastructures of two countries. An international police action would have captured bin Laden and avoided such catastrophe. George W. Bush was the worst president ever, and he degraded every department of the US government, running up trillions of dollars in debt, closing our factories, sending our jobs overseas, allowing his big oil buddies tax loopholes and subsidies, etc., etc., etc. The Bush administration built up bin Laden into a monstrous boogie-man so that he would distract us from their crimes and it worked. No one in the Bush administration has been punished, and that's the biggest crime of all.

"to demand 'legal' proof" is the bedrock of our democratic justice system. It is not reserved for some, it is for all. Justice is blind, remember?
+2 # Vegatron 2011-05-08 11:31
@Genierae: I absolutely LOVE your comment. So many people are ignorant to what Bush really did in office. The only thing i DO disagree with in your comment is the assumption that G.W. was the worst President ever. I think that title is solely reserved for President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve into existence, effectively destroying the future of this once great nation. Other than that, spot on!
+5 # genierae 2011-05-09 08:49
Vegatron and carpepax: I disagree. I think that George W. Bush made Wilson and Nixon both look like also-rans with his in-your-face evil. But after careful thought I must add Ronald Reagan to the mix. His evil was more nuanced, but just as virulent. Was Lincoln the only decent Republican in history?
+2 # carpepax 2011-05-08 11:33
Bush was the 2nd worst POTUS in history. Never...NEVER forget Nixon whose conversations were recorded showing him to have the lowest regard for other human life. So many speculate that Bush is evil but we have proof of Nixon.
+6 # feloneouscat 2011-05-09 15:22
Never forget that Nixon gave us the EPA and he was actually working on universal health care... not like he was a great guy, but he wasn't stupid. Evil, yes, but Reagan was stupid AND evil. Bush was stupid AND evil. Nixon (and it causes me physical pain to say this) actually was not as bad as Bush OR Reagan...

Okay... 'nuf pain...
+7 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 11:45
All very true. You left out one thing: that O8bama is pursuing Bush's program... or should I re-phrase that more accurately: pursuing the program Bush pursued.
+22 # Glen 2011-05-08 06:27
It will never be proven in a court of law that George W. Bush and his people are terrorists, either. How about George H.W., Clinton, Reagan? Will they ever get a day in court? Hell no.

You are not the only person to declare there is only circumstantial evidence concerning certain terrorists, which makes it all the more likely that the U.S. government can name their terrorists and assassinate them even publicly - including U.S. citizens.

Oh, sorry, that's right - that has already been done.
+17 # Vinsky 2011-05-08 06:42
Gulati, precisely how DO you measure Bush's crimes in this discussion, if not by tallying the havoc he created weighed against that of bin Laden?
+23 # rm 2011-05-08 07:44
Ashok writes, "Are you implying that Osama is not a terrorist"

The word "terrorist" is pretty meaningless these days. Terrorism is a method that most parties to the current war engage in. Bin Laden advocated, planned, and financed violent acts against the US and its puppet governments around the world. He admits to that. So that makes him a terrorist. But he's a small scale terrorist. Bush, Cheney, Obama and the whole US military are terrorists on a truly huge scale. Terrorism is only a method, and everyone uses it. You'd have to renounce violence as a solution to problems in order not to be a terrorist.

There are differences, however. The 4th Geneva Conventions recognizes the right of colonized or oppressed people to use violence to throw off their tyrants. The US is occupying or at least controls the governments in many Muslim nations, esp. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq. These people are legitimate on the grounds of self-defense and self-determinat ion in using violence against their oppressors. The oppressors are never legitimate in using violence against the oppressed. In some sense, bin Laden was a freedom fighter. That's what Reagan called him (indirectly) when he fought with the Mujahadeen in the Afghanistan in the 80s. Bin Laden wants the US out of Saudi Arabia and the Royal Family out of power. That's a liberation struggle.
+40 # louis burner 2011-05-08 10:36
3000 americans died from the 9/11 attack. how many hundreds of thousands or more (millions??) died from bush's unauthorized and unproved attack on iraqi and afghani territories, of innocent women and children and would you feel if these were your children or parents? Does being muslim or non-American mean one isn't human? it has since been stated by politicians and statesmen that they were planning these attacks to iraq and afghanistan even prior to the 9/11 attacks so the 9/11 was a convenient pretext to enter these countries. Many had doubts of the supposed WMD at the time but were not heeded and shut up. What is happening with everyone in the world today absorbed by the soaps on TV and stupidities that they don't see what is really happening here? And the government (e.g. corporate) control of the media prevents much of the truth from reaching the public and soon the internet will be controlled as well. Bin Laden was a CIA asset and it is my belief he was conveniently used as the supposed leader of the attack whereby all common sense says it isn't possible. Why was not Bush criticized or held responsible for not heeding the reports of this attack immediately prior to the attacks? In my opinion everyone from his administration should be charged with their crimes.....
-2 # haleygavin 2011-05-22 13:51
The twin towers were probably bombed by the USA, a pathological excuse to declare an endless and ridiculous war for big corporations to make stuff, and oil. Isn't it obvious.
0 # aprogressive 2011-05-08 14:25
One is supposedly innocent untill proven guilty and being in sympathy with an act isn't illegal --is it?
I'm surprised that no one has said anything about Timothy McVey
-23 # Anne W.Williams 2011-05-07 23:34
With respect to Mr. Chomsky and the cherished American rule of law, I too disagree with the
dintinguished professor. I believe there is ample evidence that Osama BinLaden
was a key conspirator behind the attack
on the Twin Towers on 9/11. BinLaden did not give those 3,000 victims
the benefit of a court trial to determine
"guilt" before their "assassnation".
Tit for tat. If the evidence was good enough for Pres. Obama to authorize the SEAL action, it is good
enough for me. Fanatical Islamic Jihad does not compare with Nazi Germany any more than it does Vietnam, and its actiions and perpetrators did not
deserve a Nurenberg trial!
+10 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 11:50
You "believe there is ample evidence." But the FBI, it seems, doesn't. Point us to the evidence you mention and we'll see for ourselves, sir.
+37 # really 2011-05-07 23:37
Equating Bush and Osama is, of course, a bit ridiculous, since Bush killed far more people.

But I don't believe Chomsky is saying that Osama is not an evil terrorist. The comparison is there to show that Osama and Bush are both evil terrorists.
+20 # sharag 2011-05-07 23:40
I would suggest reading Mr. Chomsky's comments on the death of bin Laden again. Carefully. He is quite right.
+6 # IreneTH 2011-05-08 00:13
One of the problems I have with your analysis is that I can't find a distinction between our ongoing bombings over the years of locations where Bin Laden was reported to be hiding, which if successful would have killed him and many others. What would be the analysis if one of those bombs did kill the targeted bin laden. Defending Pakistan's sovereignty is pretty hard to take seriously. Is there anyone who believes that if Pakistan had been told of the operation that Bin Laden would have been there when it took place?
+8 # jchere 2011-05-08 11:03
IreneTH: Your argument is classic neocon. Norm did not defend the Pakistand govt ability to not tell OBL we were comming. That does not justify our actions. Maybe we should not be bribing the Pakistans govt with billions as it obviously doesn't work.
+10 # BobHG 2011-05-08 00:15
Right on the money.
-5 # Riley1 2011-05-08 00:17
You made the cardinal sin of meaning to say Bosch instead Bush in the critical line in the fifth paragraph of your piece . I would not normally make such comments as it is not done to raise this as a issue . However those that are copywriters will and wont forgive you. They expect more of a world famous linguist. They expect you to be word perfect.After all the typos could confuse people with no idea of context.Just kidding.LOL
+26 # AngryMan 2011-05-08 00:23
Osama bin Laden is accused of much. As to evidence of his guilt, I know of nothing. "W" is charged with no crime. The evidence of his crimes are mountainous. If we are the pillar of justice and morality that we claim, why no trial? We just leaped to an execution and bypassed all that inconvenient stuff in the middle. In the 1993 bombing of the WTC we had trials for the accused, presented evidence and got convictions. This time we just executed the accused. If my government had a long history of telling me the truth, I wouldn't have so many inconvenient questions.
-13 # calpoet 2011-05-08 00:28
I almost always admire Chomsky's analyses, but this one seems really misguided. There is tons of evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11...I'm sure Dr. Chomsky has read "The Looming Tower," which shows how Al Queda's step by step planning resulted in the deaths of over 3000 innocent human beings that day. Obama was not lying when he said we quickly learned about Al Queda being behind these attacks. All the evidence pointed that way from directly after the attacks. It is true that this was an assassination and that we need to question the idea that assassination seems now an acceptable policy, but if any political assassination was ever justified, this is the one. Yes, Bush committed criminal acts, but I agree with Ashok that he is not the overt murderer that Osama was.
+3 # shablon 2011-05-08 09:46
If you can show me the evidence that a single one of those "hijackers" boarded the airliners i would believe it , but their names are not on the list of passengers, and their ticket stubs not available as evidence. Can you board a plane without those?
+2 # Elizabeth 2011-05-08 23:35
Not now. Then, they could have said they were airline employees. Anything.
+3 # fletch 2011-05-08 19:53
What makes you think any one terror leader could pull this off? Almost everyone agrees he is at least the figurehead. We may never know now that we have chosen not to bring him in, as any righteous country that values LAW and ORDER most definitely would. He deserved to die yah. But we gave him what we want. We sacrificed our ideology because we feared him so much. Our loss. Osama's gain.
+11 # friendlydon 2011-05-08 00:29
If I thought that Chomsky could survive assassination, I'd encourage his being our president!
What an heroic beautiful human being!
+10 # Saberoff 2011-05-08 00:47
Plainly, and bravely said. Thank you, again. May you live to be a thousand years old! Noam Chomsky.
+18 # a urs eugster 2011-05-08 00:53
A US-citizen, whom in 1992 I got to know during a 2-day ferry crossing to Greece taught me the essential US-notion of DUE PROCESS. Following many interesting talks we became friends for the next 12 years. Alas, during this time, as a dual-citizen of Israel & the USA, he converted from LABOR to LIKUD and adopted ZIONISM as his ideology, which ended our friendship. It also terminated his attachment to DUE PROCESS & other “antiquated” US-values, which he may well now characterize as QUAINT and as obsolete pieces of paper. Today, US-presidents - officially only since Barrack Hussein Obama – also reject DUE PROCESS and formally adopt the Israeli concept of "targeted assassination" as legitimate US-policy. So far, the needed "quasi-papal infallibility" seems limited to the US'"electorated " president. It may mark the return to the law of the jungle.
+17 # in deo veritas 2011-05-08 10:30
Return? When has it been otherwise? Today WE are being hunted by the corporate fascists controlling Wall Street and the government.
+11 # giraffee2012 2011-05-08 00:59
At last a logical summary of "politics" in the USA and the terrorists that run our country. Chomsky - you must go on TV where the idiots believe the rhetoric of our government. While all of your analysis is true and continues --- the GOP is taking away all our "rights" just as "you know who did in Germany" --

The U.S. Supremes' decision to give corporations 1st amendment rights has and will continue to allow them through their puppets getting elected (I believe the Koch brothers support GOP) ... to become KING of the world.

You know how the flu spreads? Corruption spreads as easily -- and the take over will not be pretty bc there will be nobody to rescue us and kill the King (Koch brothers),

One last chance in 2012 - vote Dem (I know Obame did this assassination to bin-ladin) -- but "W" and gang are worse (and that is my opinion)
+10 # itchyvet 2011-05-08 01:21
Ashok Gulati,
IF you are a believer in the word of LAW, then you have no other option, to allow the LAW to run it's course, that is, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW BY THEIR PEERS. I'd put money down, should YOU ever find yourself in a defensive position, you'd be yelling loudly for the rule of law to apply to yourself, I bet.
Under such laws, you CANNOT condemn anyone with circumstantial evidence, and in the case of Osama, even that was very weak indeed.
tortured, then the U.S. turns around and does exactly the same thing, only WORSE.
Whilst still, loudly proclaiming to hold the moral high ground.
Clearly, events of the past ten years, and these latest events have demonstrated very clearly indeed. THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW ANYMORE, ANYWHERE.PERIOD.
Your last question implying Osama is not a terrorist, can also be clearly applied to the Western nations waging terrorist wars against defenseless nations for pure greed, when an individual from such a nation makes a stand, he's called a terrorist ? EXCUSE ME ?
What was I saying about LAW no longer applying World wide ?
0 # Elizabeth 2011-05-08 23:40
What rule of law? A "victim" is "society" in the U.W. Constitution. Until there are more than criminal rights, there will be no rule of law. The U.S. threw away the Magna Carta long ago.
+20 # Mollie Steimer מאָלי 2011-05-08 01:31
Noam is right. al-Qaeda's protest has been against imperialism. Western, Soviet, Israeli. State terror today from Washington, Tel Aviv. Intensified. In Gaza. In Kandahar. Osama's execution perhaps an icon of that.

Guy DeBord reminded us: "The society based on modern industry is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally spectaclist." How much these events seem part of a society of the spectacle. Osama a spectacular icon?

DeBord: "The spectacle obliterates
[...] the boundaries between true and false by repressing all directly lived truth beneath the real presence of the falsehood maintained by the organization of appearances."

Our job is to get beyond that.
+2 # fletch 2011-05-08 19:55
If we won't play by the rules and spend more on military than all the world combined how do we expect anyone to?
-17 # h.lester 2011-05-08 01:57
Maybe it is unfair to pick on Chomsky. I don't invite harm towards him or anyone else. Bush may have been many things but I cannot blame him alone and smirking chimp knew it. If you can't take a share of the blame, shut up Noam, you are practically inviting retribution. We haven't got that much more than anyone else to pay for. Not that that isn't about a generation's worth of man-hours decontaminating this planet, living on recycled beans. The muslim world has done well not to be any worse than they collectively have. Non-muslims in the west have some catching up here and there. Like not copying them and saying to ourselves that's just how they do business there, it is not corrupt, when in fact it bloody well is and they have been trying to stop their leaders behaving that way about as long as we have ours. We make different mistakes of course. That's why most of us don't go round plotting assassinations as much as certain near middle and far eastern peoples. We have economic hit men or a history of vicious electioneering and "special" forces that is looking more like special ed forces now of course, because you have to be special to believe the version of events you get told.
+5 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:00
Your position does not seem a popular one here Monsieur Lester. Perhaps it would be best received by brainwashed FOX viewers. Ann Coulter agrees with you. But history does not. Our direct militant involvement in the Middle East and elswhere using coup, assassination, bombing campaigns and now open invasion is unheralded by no other.
0 # gtigerclaw 2011-05-08 02:49
Interestingly, I noticed in the comment ratings that everyone who disagrees with you gets negative ratings. However, realizing that I will inevitably be ostracized and possibly castigated by your loyal, unquestioning followers, I disagree with you.

High-minded intellectuals tend to put me off mainly because like their counterparts, they tend to simply pass judgments and present everything in simplistic black and white, semantically crafted terms.

I read this article, and although with the exception of the Geronimo analogy, I already knew what you had to say.

As for myself, I probably would have made the same decision as Obama.
+4 # tcatt57 2011-05-08 03:47
If you can explain to me how OBL survived his advanced Marfan syndrome or admit the raid was done at a cemetery, I guess Madame Albright's interview stating his body was on ice was more accurate then Premiere Bhutto's stating he was murdered, but sh e was quickly murdered followin her arival to her beloved Pakistan.
+19 # sebouhian 2011-05-08 04:05
I've followed Noam Chomsky not for his academic specialty, but mainly for his insightful, well-argued criticisms of what has been happening to our poor planet and its poor people in the hands of lawless leaders whose virtues are power, prestige, and wealth, and if someone gets in the way, murder is ok. I've been in a funk ever since the Supreme Court shoved "us" all aside to give away the Presidency to a man who mangled the few ideals some of us still believed in, and initiated an obsession against personified evils threatening "the greatest country in the world" thereby clothing himself and his own crimes against humanity under a gown of innocence that most voters--hypnoti zed by propagandas--ac cepted for themselves as well. Sometimes I look back to the "good" Puritans in our past who insisted that no one can know he/she is "saved," thus insisting on humility as a virtue of constant examination of self and action measured against ideals of a benevolent community. Thanks, Professor Chomsky, for reminding us that our silence and inaction leaves the "leaders" free to be their own "gods."
+25 # Frosty46 2011-05-08 04:51
"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. " Noam writes.

I for one would wave my flag and dance in the streets for weeks should the traitor Bush be given justice!
+19 # jedson 2011-05-08 05:09
Gulati and Alejandro -- So, when we can't prove someone is guilty in a court of law we should go ahead and torture and/or assassinate them because we “bet” they are guilty, and handling it in a legal manner might let them get away?? I can't quite get my head around that. Seems like that kind of reasoning is what go us into the Human Rights nightmare we are in now.
+8 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:07
You are 100% right. We all know deep down Osama deserved this. But what we gave up for what is tantamount to bloodlust is not worth it. Americans who liked it raise the bar too low for us all. We are a better pedigree than this, and we need to start proving it. We must live by law and order if we expect everyone else to.
+55 # Kerry Cubas 2011-05-08 05:11
I am a September 11th widow, and I offer you profound thanks for this article! What you write vindicates my position. I have dared to voice this same argument this past week, and have received much scathing email in response. Our nation has succumbed to fear, to the extent that we are unable to think critically on this and much else. Again, thank you for speaking truth.
+31 # Big Jim 2011-05-08 05:17
The real question is do people who commit a crime deserve a trial. The problem here is Bin Laden was financially and militarily supported by the USA government, when he was killing for them. That would all come out at a trial. So they decided it was safer to blow away in front, even in front of his kids, just like in the movies. Let the flag waving celebrations begin.
+6 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:10
You are right. But the big picture you understand must go public, hopefully sooner than later for the good of America and the World. The stories both bin Laden and Saddam would have told would have staggered the minds of many. We all know that research. But many are misguided by our mainstream news and lying politicians with their siekick pundits.
+29 # Thomas R. 2011-05-08 05:33
It certainly makes the pulse race to discover that my thoughts on the OBL murder match those of the brilliant Mr. Chomsky. A copy of my comments on a M.M. piece posted on RSN a couple of days ago follows:

Has anyone ever considered what the reaction of our fellow americans would be if a group of "them" sneaked into the "mansion" of one of "ours," and murdered the unarmed person in his home in front of his wife and children? Let's pretend it was Bush, lolling around in his pjs and robe, imbibing of course and watching the cartoons, with Laura in attendance, and all of a sudden, an armed group of avengers (relatives or countrymen of the victims of this mass murderer) popped in and cut his throat--then dumped his body in the castle moat. Oh my oh my--!

No "dancing on the grave" in this scenario, no matter how well-deserved his "assassination, " especially in the hearts and psyche of the survivors of the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims left in his wake. He's one of "ours" after all.

WHY are americans so blind? What goes around comes around. If it is a necessary strategy for us to torture, bomb to ashes their people, murder their leaders-- in order to steal their resources, then it is perfectly permissible for them to do likewise to OURS. And we have LOTS for them to purloin...LOTS!

Someday the shoe will be on the other foot. It has already begun.
+32 # Mollie Steimer מאָלי 2011-05-08 05:38
A poem by Iraqi author Layla Anwar. It's about the violence Americans have inflicted there. A poem called "Flying Kites."

This is what drives the affect and idea behind some of what al-Qaeda is, represents. It's the political reality Americans fail to understand.

“Come and see our overflowing morgues and find our little ones for us...
You may find them in this corner or the other, a little hand poking out, pointing out at you...

Come and search for them in the rubble of your "surgical" air raids, you may find a little leg or a little head...pleading for your attention.

Come and see them amassed in the garbage dumps, scavenging morsels of food...

Half of them are under-nourished or dying from disease. Cholera, dysentery, infections of all sorts....

Under nourished does not mean on a diet like your fat little kids. It means not having food to eat. [...]

Come and see, come....

See them being trafficked, raped, sold and "finally" killed by your brave boys. The "final solution." Remember that one ? It was not so long ago...Except this time it is carried out by the "greatest Democracy on earth."

Come and see, come....”
+12 # Thomas R. 2011-05-08 15:43
Mollie--your posting proves (to me, at least) that Art-- in this instance, a few lines of poetry-- can speak truth far more eloquently than all the many (some excellent) opinion pieces posted here. Thank you for sharing the terrible beauty the artist brought to light. We all know in our heads that these horrors happen, but the poem strikes us like an arrow in the heart.
It should be plastered on all the windows and windshields of the powers that be.
But then, ... ya gotta HAVE a heart..........
+5 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:17
Well said. Mollie's poem is epic. We must not lose sight of the pain we have caused and the lost and aimless souls left in the wreckage of such a devastating war. So far nearly 1/20 Iraqis died, and 4/20 were permanently displaced. The country was already much smaller in population than its neighbors Iran and Turkey whose numbers at over 70 million each are nearly triple Iraqs. Now they are even more vulnerable than ever given the heightened disparity....
+17 # Willy loots 2011-05-08 05:55
Dear Mister Chomsky,
Thank you for this article, for every honest human being is this analysis so clear and hopeful. We can only hope that many peaceful citizens of your country will stand up and. And make it clear to the Warlords that its enough.
With kind regards
Willy Loots
+5 # glenda 2011-05-08 06:04
Generally, Mr. Chomsky, we agree on issues but here we differ. He died as he lived, violently. Would a trial have taken place with no bombings? No loss of innocent life? IF Osama was responsible for the acts he claimed, IF things are as the government says, bin Laden was treated far better than his victims. That said, the celebrations over his death were idiotic.
0 # Alejandro 2011-05-08 18:01
Well said Glenda, I'm center-left, but I can't help but wonder how so many people seem to think that a trial for bin-Laden would have been able to take place without the loss of hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives.
+2 # Dube 2011-05-08 18:43
Alejandro--and if no trial, then no terrorism?
+5 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:25
You are going to get something for those lives by just blowing his brains out? Please, don't stoop to the barbaric level of these lawless thugs. That's your answer? To go half-cocked renegade and make them think you are crazy and unreasonable? Where is your moral fiber? Where is your ethic? How can you be proud to be an American when Law and Order mean nothing to you? Sure Osama deserved torture and sumary execution. But we deserve AMERICA back. Our democracy. There is no better measure of a democracy than how it treats the foulest of the foul criminals in that they too get trials and what they did is publicly exposed and needled over. We are sick of playing by Osama's rules. This is a country of Law and Order and let's get back on track NOW.
+3 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:20
Even Guy Folkes got a trial. And he tried to blow up ALL Parliament. Had we brought Osama home and tried and hung him here in the U.S.A. using all or powers of LAW and ORDER things could have been much different. We could then truly have OUR NOV. 5 holiday too, and burn effigies of OSAMA in a Bonfire that night just like they do in Britain....
0 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 22:26
You say "IF Osama was responsible for the acts he claimed, IF things are as the government says, bin Laden was treated far better than his victims." So you're saying bin Laden (assuming that the Obama/Pentagon narrative is true) should have been killed even if he was innocent?
-1 # glenda 2011-05-09 07:19
How do you read that I would have him killed if he was innocent?
+8 # Yemen my love 2011-05-08 06:05
You are amazing sir...Hats off always for the freedom that beats in your heart and mind :)
+6 # Allen Lang 2011-05-08 06:37
In Indiana, back 75 years when I was a boy, after we had a lynching, postcards of the body were sold.
+17 # Skeeziks 2011-05-08 06:39
Seems to me if W. was offed, whoever did the deed would choose the Gulf of Mexico for the dump. After all, he is an oil guy at heart.
+11 # New England Hoosier 2011-05-08 06:44
The idea that bin Laden should take his case in front of the Court of World Opinion is ludicrous. The state of Information Dissemination has devolved to such a degree that any media powerful enough to be heard beyond a minute fraction of the world's population rests securely under governmental influence, if not outright control.

The gleeful reactions from J.Q.Public reflect a lack of thought...bin Laden may be gone - who can really say at this point, conclusively - but our own 'sins', of omission as well as commission, are not hanging round his neck as he allegedly sinks to the bottom of the sea like some aquatic sacrificial goat....there is no Get out Of Kharma Free Card...we WILL reap the harvest we sow.
+4 # Sunnyduck 2011-05-08 06:49
There are a couple of things I agree with here – like the use of the name Geronimo, that the Bush administration performed criminal acts and that there is a lot to think about after this incident. But why shouldn't bin Laden be taken at his word that he was responsible for the atrocities committed by al-Qaeda? A few come to mind such as World Trade Center I, US Embassy bombings, USS Cole, World Trade Center II (9/11), Bali bombings, Madrid trains. He declared war against the US then after atrocities were committed came out with videos and took credit for them. Did he think there would be no repercussions? The thousands of innocent Americans and the many more thousands of innocent Muslims killed by al-Qaeda were victims of this man's activities and encouragement. Did bin-Laden and his followers give any thought to these victims' right to life? When our Seals found him, were they supposed to stand around reading him his Miranda rights as he went for whatever weapons could have been available to him? The Seals did not know what to expect and I for one am glad they all came home safely. And there is much more to think about – for me it's with what is happening inside our country and why and what can we do about it. Maybe bin-Laden's death will finally be the catalyst to bring us back from the crazy years since 9/11.
+9 # Dorothy 2011-05-08 11:22
Sunnyduck, stop and think: Did the Seals really have to kill Osama? Why didn't they use laser guns or other "crowd control" technology, which has proven so effective on civilians in Canada and the US?

What's happening inside our country is among other problems, BIG OIL. So big, that our government is helpless to control it. So big, that when the Taliban denied it access to build a pipeline from the east side of the Caspian Sea to the Indian ocean, the oil companies got the US to go to war so they could build it.

Any efforts Al-Qaeda makes to stop them are futile. The war in Afghanistan will go on and on until that pipeline is built. Or until the US economy collapses, whichever happens first.

And in the meantime thousands upon thousands of people will die.
+2 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:31
many times insane people make claims that are not true. It has been known to occurhere in the U.S. and is none to uncommon. Quite often schitzophrennic s, or even other attention hounds will cop to serial murders even when they clearly could not be the killers. And as far as the logic of a known enemy admitting it, why wouldn't he take credit for it even if he didn't mastermind it? He was already our number one at large criminal before 9/11. It would only boost his credibility in the terror world to accept the role as the entire instrument of 9/11 no matter what his complicity. We all know, no one man is responsible for this horrible attrocity. He is the image we all attach to the crime simply since no other has been provided and now may never be proven.
+18 # Sajepress 2011-05-08 06:56
Hunting down the terrorist who allegedly was responsible for 9/11 was a worthwhile pursuit. Ironically, as Prof Chomsky points out, Osama Bin Laden was never proven to be the culprit, and the one chance we had of finding out we blew it by killing him instead of bringing him to justice. Not to mention the treasure trove of actual information he could have provided. This ‘execution’ gives our own institutions a bad name and undermines our own beliefs in justice. Disposing of his body, deep in the sea, forever gives life to conspiracy theories which we do not need now. The only people who hide a body after a killing are criminals. Those who are innocent and kill in defense of their country will never bury evidence. What does this say about Mr Obama?
-1 # Skeeziks 2011-05-08 06:58
Also, in reference to bin Laden, any heinous crime is worth the death penalty.

From slaughter to mass murder to a war on lies and for nothing to the killing of a pregnant woman. The perpetrator is below human absolution.
0 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 22:35
"From slaughter to mass murder to a war on lies and for nothing to the killing of a pregnant woman."

What is the "war on lies and for nothing"? You're saying fighting a war on lies (for nothing?) deserves the death penalty? Please explain what you mean.
-6 # Emma Josephson 2011-05-08 07:08
Well, of course everyone is an expert. I admire Dr. Chomsky, but am dubious of his expertise in this area. I'm no fan of George W., but to compare him to OBL is ludicrous. A complaint such as this should have been made while OBL was on the "Most Wanted List" with a multimillion dollar bounty on his head. What did you think would eventually happen? I don't rejoice in the death of any human being, but I don't mourn this one.
+16 # Adriana 2011-05-08 07:15
This is all sickening, thanks Mr. Chomsky for your comments, you are right there. And not only Bush deserves to be hanged as he commited worse crimes than Bin Laden, but the rest of the parasites like Cheney the pervert and the rest of the zionists, and how about Israel? And they pretend that the world believes in them, those Rotschilds and the rest of the bank parasites making wars to kill the people like they did in Panama, and in other Latin American countries, they are all sick and the Americans are dopes because they still believe in Santa Claus. WAKE UP!
+1 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 22:45
Many people reading and commenting here probably agree that Bush is a war criminal, and Cheney as well. But don't expect us to go along with your lumping the "zionists" and "Rotschilds" and "Israel" in with them. Why? Because comment sections like this one are systematically being seeded with comments very similary to yours, presumably as a means of discrediting the actual persons who are making genuine contributions of opinion here. And comments like yours therefore discredit you.
+13 # Riley1 2011-05-08 07:23
Gularti. You are simpleton or just plain stupid . Usama Bin-laden is a sideshow . Look at the greater picture. GWB was as stupid as you and was installed in power by a political elite within the American supreme court on a lost election. He was a hopeless useless figurehead president of the USA. without a cogent thought in his head. Yet like many fools he was used to promote the real agenda of of might is right. Neocon thinking set by fellow war criminals that ran American foreign policy set by his his regime in the Whitehouse. They used well known framing to manipulate public thinking on running US wars as dictated by the military industrial complex to destabalise middle eastern countries like Iraq, libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, killing countless numbers. It's time demented scribblers like you got your heads out of your ***** and sat up and paid attention to what is really going on. Whatever admistration is establised and whatever president is installed in the Whitehouse his power is only generated by true war criminals whose agenda is world domination by the powers of the West using NATO to try and achive that aim.
China is the only bulwark against the West although it's leadership is also tainted by dictatorial control of its own people and its own interests WAKE -UP and smell the Coffee bro.
+32 # rm 2011-05-08 07:32
Chomsky's critical thinking on this issue is exactly right. He bases his analysis on the concept of legal universality or rule of law -- the law must apply to all people equally.

But the US has a policy of "American Exceptionalism. " According to this, America is the exception to the rule of law. It and its leader are not subject to the laws or the moral arguments that everyone else is. This principle seems to satisfy many right wingers or America firsters. But it is a clear confession that the US is a lawless and rogue state. I am sure that the reactionaries in the US like it that way. It is just the rest of the world -- 97% of the world's people -- who don't like it.
-6 # bobby t. 2011-05-08 07:35
Ask Isreal what happened when they captured and held terrorists.
What was the reaction of the Arab world?
They smartly held hostages gotten through kidnapping, etc. and offered them in trade. We have done that throughout history.
However, it is now America's stance that we do not negotiate with terrorists.
So, put yourself in the President's position. Does he want his daughter's kidnapped and held for trade for Bin Laden? This was certainly taken into consideration when giving the execution order. What would you do?
-11 # Al Vexa 2011-05-08 07:55
Noam,.. Noam .Comparing Apache and Tomahawk to Jew and Gypsy is lame. The former are tributes to fortitude and stamina whereas the latter would have been dispective under those circumstances.
-7 # Al Vexa 2011-05-08 07:57
It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

Noam Noam No No. The former is recognition of heroism and strength whereas the latter would have been dispective under those circumstances.
+5 # tj 2011-05-08 08:01
i LOVE that part about DUBYA!!!
-4 # Desmond Gerard 2011-05-08 08:04
Prof. Chomsky: Please clarify your meaning: Do the words "Obama was simply lying" assert that he intended to deceive, or (loose use of "lie") that he was mistaken in point of fact?
+7 # William Messing 2011-05-08 08:09
I agree with Chomsky's analysis of the execution of Bin Laden. I also agree with Mollie Steimer and her quoted from Guy de Bord. Unfortunately the Society of the Spectacle marches on and we really are in dire need of a Situationist response.
-10 # larry payne 2011-05-08 08:24
Chomsky is on record as having said in an interview that if the 9/11 attacks were a government conspiracy, "who cares?"

The only reason I can think of for him to make this bizarre statement is to protect Israel.
0 # Jim Rocket 2011-05-08 14:27
Larry: He says that because the possibility of 9/11 being a conspiracy is so remote.

BUT if it was the ONLY crime these people ever committed then it would be a big deal but they have committed and continue to commit crimes so let's work on stopping the next ones instead of tying ourselves in knots worrying about the previous crimes.
If you think he would be lying to protect Israel you haven't read much Chomsky. Sheesh!
+3 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 23:11
In the clip you link to, Chomsky also says it doesn't matter who killed Kennedy (which I personally find disappointing). But his point is that our attention should focus not on who did it but on the use that was made of it by the Bush and now the Obama regimes. The power of the American Empire was in place long before Kennedy was killed, and every president since Kennedy has played the game and helped advance that power. But 9/11 was not only an excuse to expand that power exponentially (look at the figures on the US "defense" budget before 9/11 and now), following the doctrine of "forward presence," but also an instrument for shaping opinion - "manufacturing consent," as Chomsky himself so brilliantly put it.
+17 # liberalman 2011-05-08 08:42
Bin Laden ordered/finance d/planned (take your best pick of which if not all is factual, the attack on American soil that claimed some 3,000 lives. Bush ordered/finance d/planned the attack on Iraq that resulted in the loss of ? hundreds of thousands/ millions / of lives.
Neither of these attacks were defensive in nature, they were wholly offensive and designed to conflict maximum deadly force.
Bin Laden was assassinated as a result of his decision making while Bush enjoys retired life on the ranch where life is surely restful without having to tote a chainsaw about to create a photo-op.
Only partial eye for an eye justice has been met at this point; the remainder of justice due will never be balanced.
History truly is written by the victors.
+5 # Dr.S.R. Keister 2011-05-08 08:43
When the Nazi criminals were hung in Nuremberg were there demonstrations in New York or Washington? After due justice was achieved for Adolph Eichman were there celebrations in the streets of Tel Aviv ?
0 # marianpo 2011-05-08 08:55
Bin Laden advocated the intentional killing of innocent people and even boasted of being "the most optimistic" about the number of workers at their jobs that the World Trade Center Towers attack would destroy.
You can always make comparisons with "worse" people, but that is never a legitimate defense.
Chomsky is obviously not the only one, but in his arguments he always seems to work backwards from his conclusion.
+5 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:49
We lowered ourselves to his level the moment we stepped foot into Iraq with blatantly fabricated evidence. There is no question. Law and order meant nothing from that point forward. We follow no set rules from the Geneva convention to the World Court, we will not sign the nuclear non-proliferati on treaty, and are now as renegade as al Qaeda by any definition. But with prhaps conservatively 10,000 times the whollup and 100,000 times the military budget of the peasly terror network.
+6 # Robert Massa 2011-05-08 09:40
I agree with you Mr. Chomsky. As history is being edited before our eyes, tell me again the conestion between Osama B. and the human cost of the destruction of Iraq? Having read 2 of your books, it's obvious they edited your piece.
P.S. If they print this, I promise to make a donation to RSN. I'm not a crook,Bob!
-16 # mangek 2011-05-08 09:50
A significant fact about freedom of speech is that it often results in spouts of nonsense. I see a lot the here and that includes the article.
+4 # fletch 2011-05-08 20:53
I'm not good at math, but they take out two buildings and then we take out two countries seems to be what occurred, and then we finally get around to snuffing the guy most people accept did it in an entirely different country where he has most likely been all along. I don't think that questioning the proportionality of the disasters caused by the key figures in question is out of order at all. Nonsense? Are you drinking whiskey tonight or something? What's with you? Too much Coolaide?
+19 # Don Thomann 2011-05-08 10:03
We have unseated justice and replaced her with vengeance!
0 # wfalco 2011-05-08 10:46
Obama had no choice in this escapade. Since Bush started two wars for empire,war profits,and natural resources, this country has descended into its true demise encompassing financial and moral ruin.
I would argue that the U.S. should have conducted a special operations "mini war" initially after 9/11/01 to capture or kill Al Quada members. I have reason to believe the CIA had the intelligence all along to make this a very productive "counter operation". It would have fed the frenzied citizens with their desired blood. It would have also prevented the bloodshed of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.(And, of course, a few thousand American soldiers.)
Perhaps Bin Laden's death will expedite the end of this empirical war. I believe that may be the intent.
+3 # Lestrad 2011-05-08 23:56
If Obama had wanted to end the war in Afghanistan, he could have "found" bin Laden long ago. What makes you think he wants to end it now? He expanded the war in Afghanistan and started one in Libya.

No, what this looks like is Obama being given a huge boost towards re-election by the war establishment in exchange for even further expansion. And the notion of "armed might" and global intervention unfettered by law has been reinforced into the bargain. A "win-win" deal for all concerned...
+13 # Stephen Beals 2011-05-08 11:11
Definition: American Exceptionalism. Murder is murder, terrorism is terrorism, assassination is assassination, EXCEPT when carried out by the U.S. of A.
+14 # Rosa Goldman 2011-05-08 11:37
The execution of Osama Bin Laden brings into focus the fundamental problem that faces people in all societies, namely, a willingness to capitulate to the interests of the powerful and wealthy. Are we so afraid that we are willing to believe that it is in our best interests to support actions and policies that violate the most basic of human rights? Are we that ignorant that we cannot see how and what we do to other nations and peoples creates resentments and enemies.
Hitler, George W Bush, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, etc. rose to power because people let them play on their fears and prejudices.
Why is it that the execution and dismemberment of resistors to state tyranny and injustice such as Spartacus and William Wallace or the crucifixion of Jesus is seen as unjust and reprehensible yet it is acceptable treatment for Bin Laden?
Rather than being informed by fear, perhaps we should locate our response in principle. As people and societies we can't progress beyond our murdering ways if we can't see the fallacy in most of our fears.
I bet that all who support the assasination would be the first to cry foul if Obama ordered the assasination of one of their family members, with or without apparent justification.
As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."
-11 # whatdidimiss 2011-05-08 11:45
With all due respect, Professor Chomsky is an idiot. George W. Bush was elected (sort of) to, among other things, safeguard the physical security of the residents of the United States. So was Barack Obama. That you don't like the way they do it doesn't matter because as Chomsky says, the President is "the decider." Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, was appointed by no one but himself, to enhance or restore Muslim hegemony in at least part of the world where that old-time religion was seriously disserving its adherents. He did it by committing either mass murder (killing people with no justification) or engaging in a war crime (intentionally killing civilians) depending on whether you think the War on Terror is really just law enforcement or a defense of national interests, respectively. Professor C further hurts his credibility by pretending to be agnostic about whether OBL was responsible for 9/11. But the better analogy for the SEAL raid on May 1 would have been if Iraqi commandos had rappelled into David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound in Waco and assassinated that religious fanatic who also thought the laws didn't apply to him. We probably would have reacted as most people have, with gratitude.
+8 # fletch 2011-05-08 21:00
When Bush left office in 2008, a Johns Hopkins University Study, that was also printed in the Lancet, one of Britain's leading medical journals, concluded that over 650,000 Iraqi fatalities had transpired. Since the evidence for invasion was based on fabricated WOMD documents and other doublespeak, the invasion was an ILLEGAL one. There is no other argument. I am still eager to hear one from anyone defending the GW order.
+10 # aljoschu 2011-05-08 11:46
America doesn't trust the international organisations created once to ensure peace and justice. It is absolutely not to be accepted that the USA is not subjecting their citizens to the international court in The Hague.

This can only be interpreted as hegemonic hybris. First shoot - then ask questions! Or kick those guys in the ass who dare to ask questions.
In fact, the USA is not even trusting its own constitutional laws - not to speak of its fundamental religious beliefs.

By the way: It is not christian, to order or even celebrate the assassination of a human being - be it a christian, a muslem or a hindu.

I conclude: We have drifted far far apart - Europe and the USA.
+2 # fletch 2011-05-08 21:02
And signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferati on Treaty must be inclusive. But also, and overhaul in redefining the role and powers of both the World Bank and the IMF must take place first or nothing will transpire....
+5 # fouad haidar ahmad 2011-05-08 11:58
Do unto others what you want to do unto you! Is it a constant precept in natural evolvement? Don't the predators learn from history?
0 # Nictusempra 2011-05-08 12:02
Though I largely agree with your point, it seems intellectually dishonest to note your target as "uncontroversia lly" criminal (Bush), and then claim controversy on Bin Laden.

You can't actually just claim that your points are obvious; you have to prove it.
+5 # fletch 2011-05-08 21:12
Numbers speak for themselves:

According to the lancet, a leading medical journal in Britain using data collected by Johns Hopkins University 650,000 Iraqis dead, many woman and children.

Our forces lost under Bush in Iraq exceeded 4,000.

9/11 2,996 died by the attrpocious attack and continuing cancer deaths are attributable to mercury posioning of rescue personal and those that inhaled contaminants.

By the numbers you can see the ease at which Chomsky can make his argument. We did use cluster bombs, white phosphorus bunker busters, and denuclated artillery shells all throughout the campaign certain to have systematically murdered civilian populations. Video evidence from Falluja alone is horrific. We can only imagine what went on not captured on tape. The recountings of attrocities are endless, and they come from both our beleagured troops and the surviving Iraqi population.
+16 # Able2bone 2011-05-08 12:08
Why "kill" the messenger? The Bush administration admitted as well as the facts substantiate that it fabricated the basis for waging war in Iraq that has resulted in many thousands of deaths and destruction far greater in number and severity than what OBL was accused of doing. Hence NM's statement "Uncontroversia lly, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's...". We, as Americans read far too little and think too shallow. As someone mentioned earlier OBL was NOT on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list for the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Finally, here is something to ponder: soon after the towers fell the evidence was hurriedly carted away and destroyed before it could be examined and similarly OBL's body was quickly disposed of before dispassionate investigators could examine it to determine if in fact the body was that of the infamous OBL. We are simply told something and we are expected to believe it. Forget that we have a brain and senses to examine. As a people we were lied to about WMDs being in Iraq. We were simply told by "our leaders" that the reason why "we" had to attack and invade Iraq was because Al Qadea was in Iraq and there were WMD cached there. And even when it was admitted by the Bush Administration to have been a fabrication many Americans continue to believe that there were actually WMDs there! What a shame.
+7 # lizardlking 2011-05-08 14:29
well said and very true man!
Even Tony Blair went down for admitting lying..
As i wrote earlier we need to start watching documentaries and read more independent journalism.. What you will see/read is not far from the truth!
+17 # lizardking 2011-05-08 12:38
Now that B.Laden is dead (the reason we went in Afghanistan and not for any "invisible nukes" or oil or or was it that we felt sorry for the women beaten up.. because that hasn't changed) are we going to leave this country and when?
Bush on the other hand is on a wanted list in some European countries and other countries around the world and had to cancel several trips last one to Switzerland few months ago. This guy should be a comedian seriously he has the face for a start. A former president of the US cancels trips because is on a wanted list.. really funny!
I think B.Laden knew too much (former CIA agent) and the time was right to "go".
About 9/11... because a lot of people still believe whatever the media shows to them, an everyday brainwash for them, the people behind 9/11 was B.Laden or some other religious group AND an inside job. This could not have been done without the help from the US "puppeteers". An excuse for invading 2 countries that in the future could help for an easier IRAN invasion (look map), Iraq's oil and the precious land of Afghanistan for the so important pipelines and maybe the new middle east-Asia map but for that i'm sceptical..

Thanks for your time guys..
and before you start "plunging" my comment and facts take some time and watch a few documentaries out there or read some independent journalism..
+10 # historywriter 2011-05-08 14:26
Lizardking "I think B.Laden knew too much (former CIA agent) and the time was right to "go".
That's my guess too. We couldn't afford to put him on trial and let him spill all the beans. I was always very suspicious about the almost immediate execution of Saddam Huessein. I suspect the U.S. ordered it. He really had a lot to tell us that our country did not want brought to light.
It makes no sense to kill an unarmed man surrounded by family with dozens of NavySeals there.
+9 # Greg Morelli 2011-05-08 13:07
Osama was no more a cave dweller than Bush a cowboy. Osama's Abbottabad Compound is similar to Bush's Crawford Ranch, an undeserved playground. They're both spoiled brats who seem to get-off on games of dress-up and bang bang shoot shoot. I'm glad Osama is dead. I have no problem saying that. I'll say it again: I'm glad Osama is dead. It feels good to say. Try it! He was a world-class creep. As for Bush, if Switzerland suddenly developed the chutzpah to arrange a covert operation which landed at the Crawford Ranch, in the dead of the night, to hold Bush accountable, however they decided, by gavel or bullet, I'd applaud the accountability. There's an epidemic of spoiled brats getting away with war, bailouts and bad hair. Like I said earlier, I'm glad Osama faced consequences for his shenanigans. But it leads me to ask, when did accountability go out of style in America?
-1 # jcatkeson 2011-05-08 13:29
The problem with the argument about the killing of bin Laden is this: None of these respondents were there. They have less than zero idea as to what caused the shooting. Bin Laden may have made a mistakenly overt move, the shooter may have been quite nervous. Any number of things. I suggest we take Mr Chomsky into a similar situation and give him a gun and see what happens when the bad guy scares him in some way. I am not saying the shooting was right or wrong, I am most definitely saying that if you were not there you have no clue as to the threat environment.
+1 # fletch 2011-05-08 21:17
No one on our side was even injured were they? What threat? If they are the best of the best they can do anything they are trained and ordered to can't they? The mission went as planned and flawless. The goal was to blow his brains out in the battlefield, just like the fascist Francisimo Franco and his summary execution style reserved for civilians and nationalists alike.
+14 # Ruth Turner 2011-05-08 13:34
is this the Last Fight in the Coliseum?
During the Fall of the Roman Empire toothless old men would be sent it to fight ferocious lions as the crowds roared with glee while the air was heavy with the smell of blood
We have no idea when he died, why he died, or if he died.

We do know that a failing empire bypasses the rules, skips due process, thereby making a big show de force with a gangland style hit. A big production for a people desensitized by the 3 ring electronic propaganda circus.

Have we lost our ability to analyze information?
Have we lost our humanity?
What we have here is yet another elitist serving flunky.
0 # keith mcaleer 2011-05-08 14:32
It's funny, I haven't read any negatives about what President Obama ordered not even from Chomsky. Is the change you voted for??
+5 # Donald Kehoty 2011-05-08 18:12
Quoting keith mcaleer:
It's funny, I haven't read any negatives about what President Obama ordered not even from Chomsky. Is the change you voted for??

Chomsky's entire essay was critical of President Obama and the operation to kill bin Laden; I guess you didn't read it. And if by "change" you mean actually fighting terrorism by using intelligence to track down and take out terrorist leaders instead of invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, killing a million innocent civilians and proving to the Muslim world that everything OBL said about the United States is true, then yes, this is precisely the change I voted for.
+2 # wfalco 2011-05-09 07:02
For me the answer is-yes. I'd much rather pursue terrorists, via special ops, rather than commit thousands of troops to two countries resulting in mayhem and mass destruction.
It should have been CIA/Special Ops from the get-go.
-9 # Donald Kehoty 2011-05-08 14:39
I greatly admire Chomsky, but comparing the killing of bin Laden to a similar scenario involving George Bush just doesn't wash. Osama bin Laden was not the (former) leader of a sovereign nation.
And a captured bin Laden would have been an impossible pain in the ass, creating a threat to Americans everywhere.
+15 # CragJensen 2011-05-08 15:33
Three WTC buildings fall at nearly free-fall speed because two of them were hit by planes that day; plastic coated cardboard ID cards survived the intense heat caused by burning jet fuel - revealing the identity of several of the hi-jackers that day; the steel structure of the WTC did not survive the intense heat caused by burning jet fuel that day causing three WTC buildings to (as previously mentioned) collapse that day; a huge Boeing 757 swooped across and parallel to the Pentagon lawn leaving no skid marks behind and virtually no traces of wreckage on the Pentagon lawn that day; after the huge plane rammed into the Pentagon - a hole not nearly large enough for a plane that size to fit through was formed that day; for a year and a half (following the horrid events of that day) – vice-president Dick Cheney stonewalled an investigation concerning the events of that day… Also – without hardly stopping to take a breath – the Bush administration declared that Osama bin Laden was guilty of orchestrating the gruesome events of that day. Osama bin Laden, by-the-way, unequivocally denied he had anything to do with the events of that day.
And now Osama bin Laden, a man who (if he had been brought to trial) might just have been able to shed some light upon the darkness that surrounds the mysterious events of that day has been unceremoniously executed.
(To be continued)
+9 # CragJensen 2011-05-08 15:33
(Continued from previous comment)
Silence is Deception’s most precious ally and Deception is the very Father of Tyranny.
-1 # Scalawag 2011-05-08 16:04
Predictably tedious and tendentious. A man who spent his entire adult career enabling death and destruction in an attempt to reconstruct a territorial empire governed by the most repressive form of Islam possible has met his just rewards and all Chomsky can do is whimper about international law not being followed. I don't know what places he has in mind when he speaks of "societies that profess some respect for law" but I can't imagine any country with some operational capacity not trying to take someone out after suffering such an attack.(Chomsky can talk about Orlando Bosch all he liked. If Cuba failed to get him I'm sure it wasn't for lack of trying.) Israel violated international law when apprehending Eichmann and was criticized in some quarters, notably by William F Buckley. (If Chomsky criticized it at the time I'd love to read that!)
As for legal grounds for extradition OBL (along with Muhammad Ateef) were wanted for embassy attacks prior to 9/11. Also OBL declarations of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are not limited to the videotaped "confession" from 2002 but include any number of messages the last being his declaration that Moussaoui had nothing to do with 9/11 and that he was in a position to know to know this.

Bottom line: the bad guy is dead.

Now let's get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan while the getting is still good!
+5 # Dube 2011-05-08 18:52
But Israel did put Eichmann on trial.
+5 # fletch 2011-05-08 21:26
I didn't see him reconstructing a territorial empire under any scenario. Which country exactly was he welcome even before 9/11? He was an outlaw in Saudi Arabia, and even Saddam would have imprisoned and tortured him had he got his hands on him. It is the GW orchestrated overraction that killed hundreds of thousands you blindly ignore. Legal grouns you say? What legal grounds do you pose for the death of 650,000 using forged documents to justify invasion and occupation?
+1 # Scalawag 2011-05-09 12:39
Quoting fletch:
I didn't see him reconstructing a territorial empire under any scenario.

Well evidently you weren't looking too carefully. In his public statements he made it clear he sought a restoration of the Caliphate and his ideal was Saladin. (See "Messages to the World" edited by Bruce Lawrence, which collects OBL's statements from 1994 to 2003.)
+8 # bikewriter 2011-05-08 16:41
I don't think legality had much to do with it. In today's world of expediency he had to be killed not captured to avoid the embarrassment and provocation of a trial. It was an assassination disguised as a military action. This is who we are right now. Chomsky is not wrong but he holds an ethical standard we can only hope to reach someday.
+9 # violet 2011-05-08 18:23
In the Cordillera region of the Philippines, the Igorot communities made sure the bodies of combatants killed in encounters between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the New People's Army were brought home to their families. If the slain were Igorots they were carried from barrio to barrio by volunteers. It did not matter which side they were on. That was in the eighties and I witnessed these extremely civilized and compassionate acts by people often sneered at, by Filipinos and non-Filipinos, as uncivilized.
0 # acinosa 2011-05-08 19:41
If they want to go after Bush...
.. Bring 'em on.
+5 # Miriam 2011-05-08 21:24
Thank you for this article. I was wondering how the World is supposed to be a better and safer place with bin Laden's death... and have not figured it yet. Killing him was the easy solution. Will his death really make international terrorists stop? I doubt.
+8 # steve robertson 2011-05-08 22:15
International Law should be observed in all applicable situations including Bin Laden George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Khadafi etc. Those whom murder others should be provided to state their case and then held accountable for their crimes in a court of law. Mr Chomsky states the case very clearly (with a couple interesting though unsubtantiated questions that would have been addressed in a court of law) that celebratory patriotic fervor is a somewhat misplaced response to the events of Bin Ladens asassination. I am thankful for the clear view and analysis Mr. Choamsky provides us. It should be heard as editorial on the nightly news.
+8 # Ken Hall 2011-05-08 22:50
Yes, it's time the US stopped with this "exceptionalism " nonsense and started abiding by int'l law. Professor Chomsky is respected around the world for his cogent analysis and courageous confrontation of those who prefer tyranny over democracy and free speech.
-5 # sanjoy kumar 2011-05-09 05:29
Mr Chomsky's views may be backed by his anty-establishm ent pronouncements. He may have so many things against Obama&his co,but how can a hardcore criminal against humanity hiding near a military hqrs be considered for all civic etiquettes and laws of humanity.The whole world is over joyed.It hardly matters whether intellectuals like Me Chomsky blare out their reservations on such issues.
0 # Charles Elliott 2011-05-09 07:30
My poem on the assassination is here:
0 # Riley1 2011-05-09 09:58
Why is it you indians Kumar & Gularti come here to show true ignorance and disgrace India. If you decide to make a argument of support for the murder of a man be he terrorist or not by a state that professes rule of law and then decides to change the law to suit the state, when it suits the state. Your agument is immediately negated. Your understanding of the foreign policy of a rougue state who's leaders are true war criminals supported only by brainless cretins who are mad, bad, and dangerous for peace in the world is extremely limited. Most thinking individuals in this world reject the policies of this rougue state bearing gifts for unsuspecting countries only to decimate them later by installing client regimes to do thier bidding. Times are now changing and they are finally being shown the door. This will only escalate as frightend people the world over take power back into thier hands. I hope a litte light has been shed to awaken the few brain cells you may still have left. The asumptions you make without the evidence to back up your respective arguments shows you both waste space by making innane contributions to this web-site.
Please do not insult intellectuals by describing yourself as one. Self praise is no praise at all. No self respecting intellectual would choose to be in your company Kumar.
+2 # TruthMakesPeace 2011-05-09 11:19
Right on Noam! American should obey the laws when enforcing the laws, especially if we want to set an example for the world. We can't say "we have a great Court of Law system that your country should follow" if we don't follow it ourselves. The U.S. Marshals bring in fugitives to Court every day, and they bring them in alive. They use helicopters and guns too, but also tear gas and hand cuffs. An unarmed man, and especially unarmed woman, are no match for a Navy SEAL with a machine gun and body armor. There was no reason for shooting them - unless he was the "fall guy" to take the blame for 9/11 . Bin Laden should be alive now, under interrogation, and the Department of Justice should be preparing their case against him for trial, conviction, and sentencing. This is the way to stop terrorism. Terrorism is trying to get some societal change, without going through the proper channels and resorting to violence. What did we do?
+3 # Sahaja 2011-05-09 11:28
Hopefully at least the demise of OBL will give Obama cover to pull out of Afghanistan ("we got the bad guy").

While few will mind the death of bin Laden, the way this was apparently carried out sets a frightening precedent.
+2 # Jane Gilgun 2011-05-09 12:03
The US still has some greatness where we have freedom of speech and voices of those who have access to various media have opportunities to be heard. May our political leaders study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and apply them even-handedly to all and do not let a small group of short-sighted, self-centered individuals direct the policies of the United States.The suffering is wide-spread in the US. A democratic government is supposed to care about the well-being of citizens.
+2 # rbrooks 2011-05-09 12:11
It should be said, before the videotape of bin Laden's "confession" (in which he had a much darker complexion and a completely different nose) was miraculously "discovered" in a house in Jalalabad, bin Laden gave an interview in which he denied any involvement in or responsibility for 911:,_interviews_from_Osama_bin_Laden_translated_by_CIA

"Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.

Bin Laden also states that he was living in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks and that "I have held talks with His Eminence Amir ol-Momenin [Taleban leader Mola Mohammad Omar Mojahed], who does not allow such acts to be carried out from Afghanistan's territory." Again on September 28, 2001 in an interview with Karachi Ummat, bin Laden denies any involvement with the attacks and further denied that al-Qaeda had anything to do with plotting and carrying out the attacks."
-1 # Scalawag 2011-05-11 10:08
And then on October 29 2004 he said he was inspired to attack the US after seeing Beirut bombed in the Israeli invasion of 1982.

On May 23rd 2006 he went further by saying he personally assigned the 19 hijackers
+1 # syedmahdi 2011-05-09 12:11
America's responses, now with OBL and before with Geronimo and at Wounded Knee are classic American, likewise changing the name of French Fries! America has no CLASS. Most of its foreign policy is ugly as are those who run the United States of A(IPAC)!
0 # mervie 2011-05-09 12:20
Thank you for speaking the truth. You always have.
-3 # Dr. Bill 2011-05-12 16:50
What Truth?
I had an exchange with Dr. Chomsky years ago regarding abortion. He refused to even define what an abortion was (is)!!
He simply stated that it was irrelevant to do so!! Yet he can delve into the apparent comlexities of geopolitics making definitive statments.
+4 # Ilikeevidence 2011-05-09 13:14
Of course Chomsky's article on Bin Laden's death becomes moot if one one believes that the whole raid was a farce and that bin Laden died of medical complications shortly after 9/11, as many in the intelligence community believe.

As our government has offered the world zero evidence that they just killed bin Laden and then claimed to dump his body in the sea before anyone from the international press could verify the kill, I choose not to believe this little story and I am surprised that Chomsky, if not the American people, is so gullible. We have been lied to many times about the events of 9/11 and have yet to have a real investigation of the crime, why believe one more facet of this fable?
-4 # daddyjim2 2011-05-09 14:16
With all due respect sir, there was never any question that it was an assassination. The United States said from day 1 or September 11th, 2001 that we wanted him dead or alive...mostly dead, but whatever. He was a useless waste of space and air and now he is fish food and I couldn't be happier for the fish, except that I'm wondering what monster will come out of the ocean because of him.

He is dead, move on and let's fix the real problems...econ omy, terrorism, aren't those related?
+5 # Ahmed Abbas Maswood 2011-05-09 14:21
First it was Saddam Hussein.
Now it is Osama Bin Laden.
Wonder who will be number three ?
Muammar Gadaffi perhaps !
The American cowboys are doing just fine.
+3 # Bonnie Stevens 2011-05-09 14:40
The American people need to buy shovels to deal with this new load of dung. First things first, so I want to see George W. Bush arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity or does Daddys' money buy him out of this like it bought him in? This latest "story" regarding Bin Laden is so like the story of WMDs' and Tower 7. Someone thinks we are STUPID!!!
+4 # 2011-05-09 16:35
9-11 has been fishy since day one. I dont believe anything our government says. I mean after all, our leaders are in deep with the corporations whose sole purpose is the earning of profits.....gai ning riches before saving living things, gaining riches before human lives. If Bush the puppet, and any leader for that matter, can allow the dropping of bombs on an innocent population (iraqi's), we can only imagine what other lengths they will go to gain power/riches. Like maybe kill their own brothers and sisters in the twin towers?
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2011-05-09 17:48
Heavy cheering, partying and drinking followed the World Wars and I suspect just as much of relief, pride and jingoism was in all three celebrations.

No secret tunnels and booby traps meant that if a joint US Pakistani team had decided to search every mansion in Pakistan they never would have suspected he had been there. A tied up bin Laden in a crowded helicopter possibly trying to push out of the helicopter and/or push one of the others out, as the helicopter was trying to avoid bullets from the ground and perusing planes would be problematic.

However I am disappointed he’s dead for a reason I haven’t heard elsewhere. Humans tend to honor the dead. In a prison that looked like a hotel room, with video, suffering fellow jehadists going to bed with a suicide belt on would have started to be jealous of the mansion and the prison.

I am glad Charles Mansion is still alive, though I hate his dream of helter-skelter, I think bin Laden’s dream is closer to Mansion’s than bin Laden’s supporters or distractions realize.
The cheering isn’t a blow for the peace movement except as a self-fulfilling prophecy. For more reasons why please see,
+1 # rogelio l. ordonez 2011-05-09 18:34
I agree with your points, Dr. Chomsky. Uncle Sam has to do a lot of expalining to prop-up USA's waning credibility. Was Osama bin Laden really killed by US Forces in that mansion in Pakistan? Where's even a picture of the corpus delicti? Why his corpse was suddenly dumped in the ocean without first proving to the world that he was really Osama? Some quarters are claiming bin Laden died sometrime in 2004 in a cave in Afghanisrtan due to kidney failure but the gods in Washington kept it a secrert so USA can pursue her wars of aggression (Afghanistanm, Iraq and now Libya) in the guise of fighting international terrorism so she can control the vast oil reserves in some Middleeast and African countries and even install puppet governments in those sovereign nations.
-1 # definatvoice 2011-05-09 21:07
Mr. Chomsky, rather than offering eye opening opposite views, this is the first time an article by you reads more like a hastily written CNN I-Report. Public executions, assignations and Sharia law, embraced by fundamental Islamists such as the Taliban are every day occurrences in many parts of the Middle East.
Assassinating Bin Ladin in this grotesque way was eye opening for many Americans but in line with the values of the Bin Laden followers and in many of the Middle East territories at large. Denying women basic human rights and living by ancient out of touch societal values, many parts of the Middle East live by the sword. It is regrettable that in the war on so called terror, the USA has embraced the same rudimentary values as its enemy, but short of withdrawing from the conflict, it is necessary. It’s hardly worth your distinguished reputation to write about such old news.
+1 # Darren 2011-05-09 23:24
Osama Bin Laden's a politician now? I'm not seeing this as being different to the killing of any other member of Al qaeda or the Taliban in the war. Attacking the enemy's military assets and leadership has always been a legitimate part of warfare.
0 # hrayovac 2011-05-10 00:05
I consider myself a pacifist, a socialist, am strong on labor rights and I am a humanitarian, all four qualities shared by my father who was a labor leader and fought in WW2. Mr Chomsky, you have lost your mind! If my dad could have put a bullet in Hitler's head he would not have hesitated. Neither would the great majority of civilized, compassionate citizens of this planet.
+4 # Martin 2011-05-10 12:34
Anyone saying Osama didn't deserve due process because "he didn't give due process to the victims of 9/11" should think for a second and realize that that argument applies to every criminal. The necessity of due process has no correlation with the enormity of the crime.
Also, the comparison with killing George Bush and dumping him in the ocean is misleading. The purported reason for dumping Osama in the ocean was to be in accordance with Muslim law so supposedly Muslims won't see it as an offensive act.
-2 # jeanne kraus 2011-05-10 13:48
Obviously Mr. Chomsky has not lost a relative in the 9/11 massacre. How fortunate for him. Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.
+3 # irishrover 2011-05-10 19:32
"In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior." - Sir Francis Bacon.
I am sorry that you lost a family member. Your FEELINGS are natural & understandable but your REASONING is skewed buy those feelings. The magnitude of a crime is not a rationale for lynching.
0 # Conservative in CO 2011-05-11 05:14
Why doesn't his analogy reference Iraqi's killing Barack Hussein Obama and dumping his boddy?

President Obama is the one continuing the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and starting a war in Lybia.

President Obama is the one that ordered Seal Unit 6 to infiltrate a sovereign nation and assassinate Osama Bin Laden.

I would oppose such an action, as well as such an analogy as ridiculous. Apparently the hate-filled liberal wing has no problem with violent rhetoric to imagine the death of an ex-President. How is this violent rhetoric at least not as bad as putting a picture of crosshairs on a state map?
+2 # Buff Parry 2011-05-11 08:53
Noam:I've not been as polarized by your observations as I am now, once reading your posted reaction to the assassination of OBL.On the positive pole,in the spirit of your libertarian appreciation of Indigenous Resistance,your Geronimo analogy and Apache-Tomahawk /Jew-Gypsy equivalence are dead-on.Few are aware that the tomahawk was the "hatchet" referred to in the "bury the hatchet" adage.Iroquoian s buried their tomahawks to seal a PEACE treaty,whereas the Cree and other Indigenous N.American nations often used the sacred pipe-stem.But on the negative pole,OBL did "confess" to 9/11 in a way that eluded most observers.When he made the point of subtracting Zacharias Moussaoui from the intended 9/11 "angels of the fire", he did so with the inside knowledge that only 19 hijackers were intended in the first place.The evidentiary paper I wrote for the Moussaoui trial, the one you commented favorably on, set out the proofs of this. Too bad Moussaoui's legal council Gerald Zerkin chose not to use it, yet still acknowledged it.The fact that the FBI deviously clamored to create the illusion of 20 intended hijackers was ironically served by Zerkin in his rejection of said evidence.OBL's remarks about Moussaoui were code for those who understand the cryptic use of #19.Above OBL's other admissions, his targeted use of the #19 reference remain his ultimate boast-filled concession.
-1 # Ppossom 2011-05-11 09:02
I suppose that we could have asked the SEALs to capture Bin Laden so that a court appointed psych team could establish that Usama was actually mentally competent to confess the crime.. But that could have cost the lives of the SEALs, and then we would have to have court hearing to determine whether the charge against the CiC should be manslaughter or reckless homicide.

I like to think that Noam Chomsky is tickling our funny bone.
+1 # DanaM 2011-05-11 19:39
Unfortunately, there are many problems with taking Osama Bin-Laden alive. And just as background, I am an opponent of the death penalty, although I confess that I did not shed a tear for Bin-Laden’s death. However, if Bin-Laden is taken alive, what do you do with him? Let’s consider the ramifications:

1. Where can he be detained while awaiting trial? There are enormous security issues:
a. You have to make sure that he doesn’t kill himself, which he would probably try to do. He can’t be seen by his compatriots being paraded around in chains, so extreme care would have to be taken so he couldn’t kill himself
b. You have to protect him from the militants who would try to break in and kill him, just so they could brag that they were the one who killed Osama Bin-Laden
c. You have to protect him from terrorists, who might try to rescue him, or even worse, blow up the entire building to kill him and “release” him from his prison (and then turnaround and blame the U.S. for blowing him up)
2. There is no way that he could have a fair trial in the U.S. Even if you could find 12 brave citizens who could be impartial, imagine the enormous pressure on them to convict. If there was a hint that they might acquit, the jury and their family would receive horrendous death threats. He could not receive a fair trial in the U.S.
0 # DanaM 2011-05-11 19:39
3. So where do you move his trial. To a country that would be willing to try him, even with all the security issues noted above? How many countries, that could reasonably give him a fair trial, would be willing to accept him? And what if that country doesn’t have the death penalty, which many, many countries do not? Would we allow him to be tried in a country that doesn’t have the death penalty? What if there was no other choice?
4. And what would happen should he be acquitted in this other country? Would he just walk away as a free man? Wouldn’t every gun-toting psycho be after him, even though he was not guilty? Where could he go, who would be responsible for him?

Although Bin-Laden didn’t have due process, the alternative scenario would have been a nightmare. Does that mean the easiest solution is the best solution because justice would have been too difficult? Of course not, but given the circumstances, was there really a choice? Sometimes I wonder if the Bush Administration decided not to try too hard to find Bin-Laden just so they could avoid the difficulties that taking him alive would cause.
0 # Ryan 2011-05-12 11:51
There has to be some recognition here that this was an absolutely extraordinary situation. Moreover, whether it seems morally arbitrary or not, executing democratically elected political figures or heads of state is not regarded as similar to killing terrorist figures. Bush's sole purpose was not the massacre of as many civilians as possible. Much as I abhor Bush, the comparison between the two is a stretch to say the least.

More generally, I don't think it's either fair or sensible to place the whole weight of our foreign policy misdeeds throughout history on this decision. Yes, invading Iraq was wrong, but it really doesn't bear on this issue at all. Should we not kill bin Laden because we supported a coup in Chile in the '70s? This was a decision that had to be made on its own merits. Messy and morally questionable as it was, I find it hard to disagree with the decision.
0 # cherylpetro 2011-05-12 14:04
Dear Mr. Chomsky,
Bin Laden had plans to hurt the US in the future; his personal journal attests to that. President Obama made a decision along with other military officials. They did what was needed to keep this country and others safe. This was a unique set of circumstances and to compare it with people taking George Bush is RIDICULOUS! Bin Laden was NOT the president of any country, he was a leader of a terrorist group! How DARE you even BEGIN to compare the two! Compare apples to apples, then see what you get! You have been the voice of reason until now! I think of you as a silly clown! You must be losing your ability to think rationally in your old age! I will from now on stop reading your completely absurd and ill thought out "logic!"
+1 # Wang48 2011-05-12 17:01
I rather like the idea of the "Jew-F190" and the "Gypsy Drone" as the name of weapon systems. And of course the unasked question, what if NATO had attacked the USA after we killed students on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio in 1969?
0 # Glen 2011-05-13 05:41
Good question, which could also include a number of other events in which either the military or groups supported by the government slaughtered or beat U.S. citizens.
+3 # True 2011-05-13 20:40
This largest state terrorism on the world is not a great country

* This list of crimes in America during the twentieth century ... Next to each crime history and number of victims and the scene of the crime:

1) in April 1916: U.S. Marines suppress an uprising in the Dominican and then occupies the entire country at the beginning of May and continue occupying eight years.

2) in May 1945: U.S. warplanes bombed the city (Dresden) German Although crawl Russian had violated no longer for this reason a military target, the bombing has led to the killing of 150 thousand civilians, and destruction of 60% of the premises.
+1 # True 2011-05-13 20:41
3) early December 1943: German Navy sinking ship of the U.S. (S / S John Harvey) at sea and found it was loaded with one hundred and fifty tons of mustard gas. Perished as a result of the spread of the gas in the atmosphere of the region and its waters Seventy-five sailors, in addition to forty-five tons of fish washed ashore on the face of the waters.

4) August 6, 1945: American President (Truman) dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, which killed (78150), in addition to tens of mutilated.

5) August 9, 1945: American President (Truman) dropped the second atomic bomb on the city (Nagasaki) Japanese reaped (73 884) people, (60.000) wounded, with the complete annihilation of each animal and insect and plant.

6) September 28, 1945: ratified by former U.S. President Truman on the decision to establish an air base for American forces in Dhahran to be the first American military presence on the island.

7) seized by the Americans in 1946 to two hundred and fifty thousand tons of carbon (tabun) in the deadly (Giorgian) in Austria, instead of destruction was secretly transferred to the United States.
+1 # True 2011-05-13 20:43
8) 1949 United States ignite a civil war in Greece claimed the lives of 154 thousand people, and deposited about 40 thousand people in prison, and 6 thousand were executed under the provisions of the military. Has been recognized by former U.S. Ambassador in Greece (Makweg) that all technical data and disciplinary actions taken by the large military government in Greece in the period between 1947 in 1949 were certified and equipped directly from Washington.
+2 # True 2011-05-13 20:43
9) March 3, 1949: The CIA carried out a military coup in Syria led by Hosni leader has been planning a coup in the U.S. embassy in Damascus.

10) August 14, 1949: A group of Syrian officers under the direction of the U.S. embassy in Damascus, surrounded the house Hosni and killed him after he rebelled against their orders.

11) June 26, 1950: United States intervened militarily against North Korea for South Korea.

12) March 10, 1952: The United States supported General (Batista) to carry out a coup against the Republican government in Cuba. After seizing the authority to impose a totalitarian country and lags associated with the United States.

13) August 19, 1953: implement the CIA coup against Mossadegh government in Iran national. The planning and implementation (Kim Roosevelt) grandson (Theodore Roosevelt), President of the United States in the year 1901 in 1909.

14) June 27, 1954: Implemented and CIA coup in Guatemala.
+2 # True 2011-05-13 23:11
Why do you help Israel to occupy Palestine?
Why do you kill Iraqis and steal their oil?
Why do you kill Afghanistan?
Why do you kill Pakistan?
Why Tsouron with the dead and laugh and have a souvenir!?
Why do people Tazbon Guantanamo prison?
Why Trqson to the news of the death of a man who had not been tried, but was killed in front of his young daughter?
Why or why
Why you so?
You Atdon terror itself to freedom You are the first proof of
+2 # Habibeh Alikhan 2011-05-22 11:23
So according to Chmmsky, Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world? Even he can't speak the truth! No, it isn't Pakistan. It's Israel and the USA! He says the Muslim world is not phased out by Osama's demise. That's true. You know why? Because Muslims are not the nasty terrorists they are made out to be! If, as Chomsky says Muslims will not miss Bin Laden, then it just goes to prove that they are not like him. So why is Pakistan, or any other Middle Eastern country for that matter, the most dangerous in the world?
The USA is not the pure and just country that some of you seem to think it is, and that's why some people are going on and on about how this is not the way we should have handled it etc. In the USA there is only a whole lot of lies and hypocricy!
The only reason for my still having some doubts as to whether they actually killed Osama,(the man who helped them with 9/11), is because of the conflicting reports and explainations about how they got him and how they got rid of him!
0 # haleygavin 2011-05-22 13:43
I agree, the USA just wants to have a friend they can blame for an excuse to sniff out more oil. The USA probably bombed the twin towers, shock I know and sad, a bunch of pathologies exist with our government and the power they like to get from being so hurtful. It isn't working...
0 # Williamtheb 2011-06-13 17:48
If Bin Laden has been dead for nearly a decade the nature of the public charade this episode represents is breathtaking. Private duplicity is expected but the "Hillariously Swanky" performance (if proven to be such), surely deserves an Oscar! I have wondered (from this side of "The Pond"), if the moneterist ethos (having penetrated both ends of America's bi-polar body politic), has lead to competition "across-the-boa rd" (including in hypocriscy).
-1 # Afra 2011-07-13 14:23
Quoting countrygirl:
Heartfelt thanks to you, Noam Chomsky. You speak my mind.

Yes, He speaks the minds of millions of middle Eastern people, Who have been tortured, killed, terrorized, vanished, executed, exiled by all of United State's appointed dictators and their dictatorship governments and Islamic fundamentalists creatures like KHOMEINI, TALIBAN, ..
US does not bring any democracy and freedome to anyone and anywhere except war, horrors, killing millions of indecent people. So no one believes all fabricated CIA's shows ...

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.