Link to Archive of Weekly Issues Judging Bin Laden

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

Judging Bin Laden

Mirror Sites: CSUDH Habermas UWP

Caliifornia State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: December 7, 2001
Latest update: December 7, 2001
E-Mail jeannecurran@habermas.org

The Martyr Dilemma

On Wednesday, December 21, 2001, Ruth Woods wrote:

Subject: Bin Laden Lecture - November 20, 2001

Good evening Dr. Curran:

I would like to respond to the lecture today in class regarding Bin Laden. You made excellent points about the mindset of Bin Laden and his clan. I agree that Bin Laden should not be killed, but I do believe that he should be punished for what he has done to our country. There was an interview with Bin Laden, and he stated if he is killed there will be thousands like him that our nation will have to deal with. (Try to cite the source, so that others can consult it.) So, I agree Bin Laden should be taught a new way of thinking.

Ruth Woods

On Friday, December 7, 2001, jeanne responded:

Good to hear from you, Ruth. Well thought out, but needs a little detail added on the conceptual linking. Yes, there is a dilemma in the bin Laden situation. Of course, we must put an end to the gratuitous violence. We must also put an end to the structural violence that grows out of the concept of knowingness, that what I "know" is right and that anyone who does not agree with it is "evil" and must, therefore, be killed. That would demand that we all "know" the same things and believe the same things, and that, given our numbers is an unlikely consensus. So there must be some way other than killing those who disagree.

I think it's also important to recognize that there are many issues at stake here. There is a very real substantive issue in cultures that are not highly technocratic that the American coroporate world appears to glorify consumerism and capitalism. Both of these ideals feed social injustice, for consumerism benefits primarily those who have more than others, and so does capitalism. In summary, there are valid substantive validity claims that have been raised. Killing Bin Laden will not resolve those substantive issues.

Another substantive issue of importance is who shall do the judging. When Americans call collectively for the death of bin Laden that is an emotional response. We are hurt. We are angry. It is quite natural to want revenge. But bin Laden is several steps removed from the actual events at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. So are the Taliban. This means that as we proceed to establish guilt in a way that our legal system would legitimate a death sentence, we need to consider the evidence. It is upon evidence and proof beyond a certain level of doubt that our system of law stands. Our system stands also on advocacy, the principle that each side should present its evidence and argue as persuasively as possible for its perspective. And our system of law requires that the accused shall be entitled to the best defense possible.

That would seem to argue that the tribunal that decides guilt or innocence should be a impartial trier of fact who will be able to discern truth when both sides (or many, as the postmodern case may be) are argued fully and competently before that tribunal. Now there is a problem with that. Who could be an impartial trier of fact when most of the world has condemned the gratuitous violence that took the lives of so many non-combatants.

I won't pretend to answer that. We have no effective international tribunal with the power to make such decisions, unless the countries involved in the dispute grant that international tribunal jurisdiction. But it does seem that for the U.S. to be both prosecutor and trier of fact presents a conflict of interest. These are the kinds of issues that are going to continue to arise in the twenty-first century. Where are sovereignty and jurisdiction going to reside? Who will enforce the judgments, and by what means?

This brings up a whole different substantive issue: Our response to September 11 must take place on many levels. Punishing Bin Laden and understanding the origin and mind-set of the policies that led to this debacle are very different levels. As a teacher I prefer to address the reflexive concerns of how did we find ourselves in such a space that so many could hate us so much. From that perspective the interview with Bin Laden expresses some real concerns. I would like to understand as deeply as possible how our foreign policy, our move towards corporatism, our exclusive emphasis on capitalism (that maintains social inequity) interacted with the technological discrepancy and the social issues long faced by the Middle East. That is a teacher's and a scholar's concern.

Judging Bin Laden is the concern of those who would enforce our International Laws, when they have yet to become concrete, universal, and applicable beyond nation-state sovereignty. I find it hard to deal with these different levels at one and the same time. I would like to leave the judging to others, and focus myself on the teaching and learning. I believe that is why Habermas focus on the different spheres of the social system.

These are complex issues we faced this semester. Would that we could have covered so much theory in smaller steps over a longer time period. But this is sociology happening. We don't want to miss it.