To claim that killing Osama Bin Laden without a trial is
unlawful would be like claiming that the United States illegally declared war
on Japan after Pearl Harbor. An attack on American soil killing innocent lives
is not an ordinary crime that requires the due process of law. It is a
declaration of war that requires retaliation. President Bush made such a
declaration after the events of 9/11. He declared that “[The Taliban] will hand
over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate”, and operation Geronimo
finally sealed the fate for the terrorist who planned the 9/11 attacks (Bush).
President Bush’s declaration and the operation that followed are not examples
of “American exceptionalism”; they are the actions of Americans protecting a
country, and a culture that we love (Chomsky).
Noam
Chomsky argues that Osama Bin Laden’s part in the 9/11 attacks was a horrendous
crime, and therefore Bin Laden should have been apprehended, but not killed so
he could stand trial. His ‘crimes,’ however, killed about as many people as did
the events of Pearl Harbor, which was considered an act of war. His ‘crimes,’
also had a strategic purpose; as Bush declared in his speech, their purpose was
“to disrupt and end a way of life” (Bush). As the President of the United States, it
was the duty of Bush, and Obama after him, to protect the constitution of the
United States, and provide for the common defense. In order to fulfill this
duty, the nation had to respond to the violence as a declaration of war to
protect the way of life the Taliban declared war on September 11th.
Another
flaw in Chomsky’s argument is his use of comparison of Bush’s policy to the
crimes of the Nazi’s. Interestingly enough, Bush actually compares the
terrorists to the Nazis as well. The use of this comparison may be used by both
authors because of the negative connotation the word has today, certainly
making it easier to appeal to the audience’s emotions. However, Chomsky’s use
of the word seems based on the one fact that both the Nazis and Americans used
aggression against their enemies, and created a “murderous sectarian conflict” (Chomsky). The difference is the Nazis killed millions of innocent people without being
provoked, while the Americans killed the leader of a terrorist organization who
wanted to end the United States. The actions of the President were in
retaliation to a declaration of war by terrorists and not an example of “American
exceptionalism” as claimed by Chomsky.
Works
Cited
Bush,
George W. "President George W Bush's Address to Congress and the Nation on
Terrorism." 20
Sept. 2001 Speech.
Chomsky,
Noam. "Was There an Alternative?" The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 6 Sep. 2011. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
Very thoughtful response--you do a good job of logically attacking Chomsky's claims. You make an interesting point that both speakers invoke Nazi Germany as a comparison. It's interesting how often this occurs--I just read an article online the other day, a Jewish man whose grandmother survived the camps was outraged that Kim Davis's lawyer compared her struggles to the Jews in the Holocaust. The writer was outraged at the comparison, not surprisingly. It's interesting here that two such different speakers and thinkers would both use the comparison.
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was very effective in attacking the claims that Chomsky made in his essay about the 9/11 events. The introduction you used was a great comparison. Pearl Harbor, like the schemes of the Al Quada, was a deliberate attack on the United States; It would have seemed nearly ridiculous if the U.S. government had not responded with force to either event. Also, I had not noticed before how both Bush and Chomsky used Nazi Germany to support their claims, although they both used it in completely different ways. I think this happens a lot in everyday life, people can use an occurrence and twist it and pull out the facts to suit there claims and arguments.
ReplyDelete