POSTED BY SEVEN DAYS FREELANCE REPORTER KEVIN J. KELLEY
Add this one to the “Only in Burlington” file:
Two veteran peace activists called a news conference on Friday to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden as an act of “murder” on the part of the Obama administration. The shooting of the unarmed Al Qaeda leader constitutes an assassination that violates standards of international justice as well as the founding principles of the United States, declared Burlington attorney Sandy Baird and Peace and Justice Center cofounder Robin Lloyd.
The two women acknowledged that very few Americans will share their view that bin Laden should have been arrested and put on trial rather than being, in Baird’s words, “summarily executed.” But it’s wrong to sacrifice principle for the sake of popularity, Baird and Lloyd argued.
“We are the only voices that don’t seem entirely gleeful about the assassination of Osama bin Laden,” Baird said, likening the reaction to the killing to “crowds cheering as though it were a sports event.” She criticized Vermont’s three congressional representatives for praising the action carried out by a U.S. Special Forces Team on May 1.
Related Stories
This article appears in May 4-10, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
What amuses me are the people who were all over waterboarding under W. but who now have no problem with Bin Laden getting two in the face. It’s not immoral or illegal when your guy does it. Baird and Loyd have the courage of their convictions and they aren’t afraid to speak up just because there’s an alleged liberal in the White House.
Good for these two expressing their opinions, and everyone else for expressing theirs in the comments. Disagree or not, they are free to say what they want and the press was free to attend and print a story about it. That’s exactly what we should be celebrating – our freedoms in the US and especially Vermont. I think that’s the entire point of their minimalist rally – though I, for one, was certainly not displeased to learn of Osama Bin Laden’s death.
Matt, I agree, playing the world’s police has caused problems for us, and that is a result of past actions. Had we made other countries actually participate in countries instead of always waiting for us to jump in we would be much better off. The unfortunate reality is however that someone has to be the world’s cop, and it happens to be the US right now. To think if we simply left everyone alone that the world would become a place of peace and harmony is just plain stupid. Past experience has repeatedly indicated that’s not the case. Maybe you could e-mail the PM of Canada and see if they will tow the line for a while hmm? I will disagree with you that “kicking ass all over the world doesn’t keep us safe.” The best defense is a strong offense. Do you think that trigger happy deluded dictator over in N.Korea wouldn’t have blasted S. Korea off the map if the US wasn’t an ally or was an ally without a military? Do you think Ackhemdajihad would producing enriched uranium for “energy purposes” only if the US wasn’t keeping them in check? Do you think bin laden would have refrained from bombing the WTC, not bomb our embassy, not bombed our ships, not flew planes into the WTC if we had no military. That’s just nonsense. Pure and simple.
Jen – “Kicking ass all over the world” doesn’t make us safe – it’s what got us into trouble in the first place. If we were to *gasp* mind our own business instead of playing the world’s policeman/propping up authoritarian regimes (see: Saudi Arabia’s suppression of the Arab spring both domestically and in Bahrain), the incentive to attack us would disappear. Read a little history before spewing your ignant jingoism out over the internet…
You know why these two ladies are able to have a ‘rally’ or protest in public like that? Because we kick ass all over the world and make things safe back at home. I’d like to see Sandy and Robin walk a day in the shoes of our nation’s military in Iraq or any other hot spot in the world. Ignorance really is bliss, or should I say peace ladies?
Right, I’m sure this scientist sat down and decide to take numbers from an INTERNATIONAL Security force and then corroborate those so he could continue to get funding from DOD? You know, after his article entitled “Survey Says: War Is the Irrational Choice” he was probably on thin ice and needed to cozy up to DOD. Moreover, had you looked into it, you would have seen that these numbers have been corroborated by that other well know DOD group…wiki leaks. Finally, if you could quote multiple sources then do so. But your statement that 7 to 1 is a GENERAL one for modern warfare I suspect it is a talking point that has been perpetuated through the anti-war movement. Moreover, the knee jerk dismissal of other data that doesn’t jive suggests you aren’t into actually verifying numbers. But, please prove me wrong.
Also re Science Magazine statistics. Ooh Science has no interest in the military take on things just because most research money comes via the military industrial complex.
To Jcarter,I could quote you pages of different statistics but you clearly want to believe the military does good things. The military does not keep good statistics on civilians killed remember they don’t do enemy body counts anymore. Its all just collateral damage. The US goes to war anytime a president needs to show his manliness Reagan invaded Grenada for cris sake. And Bush led an invasion of Iraq completely based on lies.And so a military hero (someone you might believe) General McChrystal said of Afghanistan; “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”The 7 to 1 statistic is a general one for modern warfare. So while we weep and moan about soldiers, and I am sorry too for people economically coerced into this or dumb enough to believe they are doing something for democracy, the reality is tons of non combatants are killed in these wars for elite power interests.
Anyone think 7D would cover a two-person “Rally” on support of our troops on such a momentous occasion?
Here’s some numbers”In January, ISAF provided Science with a database of civilian casualties called CIVCAS. It is the military’s internal record of the death and injury of Afghan civilians, broken down by month, region, weaponry, and perpetrator. By its reckoning, 2537 civilians were killed and 5594 were wounded over the past 2 years, with 12% of those casualties attributed to ISAF forces and the rest to insurgents. The death toll is 93% identical to that in the WikiLeaks data, revealing those raw field observations to be far more reliable than researchers had suspected.”Now, I’m no statistician, but as far as I can figure, the ISAF killed 305 civilians over the course of 2 years. If we are to believe that 7 civilians are killed for every soilder then we are even more successful then I, and I suspect most people, were aware of. BTW, that is from the March 2011 issue of Science Magazine.