A difference with Bin Laden, Nazis

A difference with Bin Laden, Nazis
May 05, 2011|By Martin J. Phillips


I like to think of myself as a fair man. A man who believes in the rule of law, but I can't tell you how happy I am that we have finally nailed Osama Bin Laden. And I don't care a whit that they shot him in the head, or that we denied him a trial.

This is the man, let's not forget, who changed America. He destroyed the lives of those he killed and their families. Brave rescuers at the World Trade Center are still suffering and dying from the poisonous gases they inhaled trying to save others, and that's not all. Bin Laden stole our country's security and our confidence. Our country is still suffering from depression, both psychological and financial, this man brought upon us almost a decade ago.

But now I stop myself. There have been mass murderers before.

We, at Lynn University, have just completed Project Nuremberg. The focus of that project was a dramatic re-enactment of the Nuremberg trials — the trials of the German mass murderers who orchestrated the extermination of millions. In our research, it was clear some governments wanted to summarily execute the Nazis because of their crimes against humanity. We, the Americans, fought for fairness.

To quote a noted Holocaust expert, "The whole element of Nuremberg was to demonstrate what a civilized society does. So there had to be a trial, and there had to be evidence shown that these individuals were guilty of crimes that they were being accused of."

The United States won the debate and the Nuremberg trials took place. The laws on how you deal with genocidal maniacs were established, but that was then. Now it is a whole different ballgame. These maniacs are unstoppable.

Our officials describing the attack on the bin Laden compound suggest they considered taking him alive but he offered some resistance. I'm not sure what kind of resistance he offered, because he wasn't armed. Let's face it, we wanted to kill him. Let's not forget both President Bush's "dead or alive" warrant or President Obama's campaign promises.

We wanted him dead. Not convicted and then executed. Dead.

Is there a moral equivalence to what Hitler did and what Osama Bin Laden did. You bet. So why is it acceptable that we shot Osama, but tried the German murderers? Because with all their evil, Hitler's high command ultimately surrendered. To shoot people waving a white flag is not part of our moral DNA.

And that is ultimately the difference.

We are still engaged in a war, maybe undeclared, but a war to the death. In that kind of a war, the niceties of civilized behavior have to be put aside. This is a good day for America and, yes, even for justice.

Martin J. Phillips is an assistant professor of multimedia journalism at Lynn University. He lives in Boca Raton.
Ads by Google