The killing of Bin Laden on May 2nd in Abbottabad by United States Navy SEALS, was an event that resulted in conflicting opinions. Angela Merkel expressed her satisfaction, while former Prime Minister Helmut Schmidt described the killing as a violation of international law. In France, Libération harshly criticized the “toxic rhetoric” of patriotism expressed in celebrations held outside the White House. Critical assessments also appeared in the Italian press. The jurist Antonio Cassese, former president of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, wrote in La Repubblica on May 6th that the United States had, on this occasion, committed three violations of international law. The first allegedly consisted of identifying the compound by using torture (this has not however been confirmed or proven), the second was having carried out a military mission in Pakistani territory without previously requesting authorization (a crime that Cassese himself absolves President Obama of having committed, since Pakistan’s omissions are quite obvious). The third was allegedly the killing itself, an act that states are not authorized to carry out except in two circumstances, in war or during police operations in which the wanted person reacts by shooting or putting at risk the lives of the pursuers. Cassese’s instead believes that the decision to kill bin Laden was made at the very beginning, and although he does not consider it legitimate, he is ready to acknowledge mitigating circumstances, considering that this is Realpolitik unduly prevailing over ethics and law.

In La Repubblica of May 9th 2011, Mario Pirani expressed a different opinion, agreeing with Jonathan Safran Foer who said that justice can be served in many ways and not all are equally good, adding that “in this case, perhaps things could have been done better. But this does not mean justice was not done,” and disagreeing with Cassese who believes that “between the USA and Al Qaeda there is no war, neither an international nor a civil war, and that America’s action against terrorist networks is only a police operation.” It is only in this case that, according to Pirani, one can speak of “murder.” This, however, does not apply to the Abbottabad case, where there was a war that began with the “bombing” of New York. It is a war triggered by terrorists, following parameters that differ from conventional ones, but a war nonetheless, and one that does not leave room for to gentlemanly behaviour such as, “Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers.”

Pirani is mistaken in describing it as a war triggered by “Islamic extremism,” because luckily Al Qaeda is a far smaller subspecies than the vaster category of “fundamentalism,” as often reiterated by General Petraeus on the basis of his experience in Iraq, but it remains a war. Pirani proposes a comparison, familiar to his generation, with the end met by Mussolini, who was captured and killed by resistance fighters in Dongo, and whose body was exhibited in Piazzale Loreto. “In spite of its brutality, that event was saluted by millions of Italians as an indispensible and timely act of justice. The few who complained he had not been arrested and put on trial were judged with diffidence.” Hence, difficult as President Obama’s decision may have been, the military raid with its dangerous dynamics very probably involving the death of the most wanted man in the world, has avoided the danger of the summum jus being confirmed as summa iniuria.

A similar debate has been taking place between the various representatives of American liberal culture. Significant opinions are hosted on the website Dissent, the magazine edited by Michael Walzer. The most convincing opinion expressed is precisely that of the philosopher of Just and Unjust Wars, who when asked if Osama Bin Laden was an enemy to be killed at war or a criminal to be caught with a police operation, answered saying that at different times both hypotheses were correct. The fight against Al Qaeda’s terrorism is a job for the police, as happens in Europe. “If bin Laden had been in hiding in France, he would have been captured, arrested and put on trial.” Also due to mistakes in the manner in which the war has been conducted, the conflict in Afghanistan has spread to Pakistan, a state that is unable to prevent hostile attacks against the United States being planned in its territory. “Pakistan is not a peace zone either for al Qaeda or for the United States. The killing of Osama bin Laden was therefore an act of war. His killing was therefore “not an injustice.”

Translated by Francesca Simmons