I’ve been enduring, teeth gritted, the America-hating propaganda of Noam Chomsky since my college days. He is a brilliant linguistics professor who has credibility as a social critic only because his world view—briefly put, that the United States is evil, and anything that indicates otherwise is the result of a conspiracy–has been so supportive of and nurturing to the extreme Left. It is hard to quantify how much harm he has done to this nation or how many potentially productive minds, foreign and domestic, that he has warped with his bile, but I am sure it is substantial on both counts.
We are fortunate, I guess, to have his assessment of Osama Bin Laden’s death, recently published and available for reading here. The piece is res ipsa loquitur that the man is so consumed with unreasoning hatred for his country that he cannot process the truth or think straight, but I know that plenty of Chomsky followers will be cheering. Thus I am grateful that Christopher Hitchens has authored an admirable take-down of the professor, here.
Ethics Alarms 
I like Chomsky and I like Hitchens. Let’s play. Who said what? And no peeking!
“Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune.”
“I think we’ve just entered the reign of piety and iron.”
The first is Chomsky. The second could be either, or me. I only memorized half of each piece, and spent the rest of the tome brushing up on “Evangeline.”
Really? People think Chomsky is sane? Apparently I’m not part of the extreme Left.
Did you think that you were? You are clearly a part of that (fairly large but not sufficiently vocal or influential) group known as the rational, non-doctrinaire left, a group I associate with people like the late Pat Moynihan. No?
That was SMP bait.
I’m more of a rational libertarian humanist than a leftist. I just find that the sum of left leaning positions (as they can be realistically implemented) is a net positive over the sum of right leaning positions (again, as they can be realistically implemented). I guess I’m a utilitarian rational libertarian humanist.
Think I should start my own political party?
Couldn’t hurt. The Humanist Utilitarian Rational Libertarians—you could have fun with that.
I suspect I’m not electable.
I suspect it too, TGT. Thanks for the “bait”. And “rational libertarian humanist”?? There’s one for the books.
Professor Chomsky spews vitriol over everything American, but stll continues to live here instead of all the countries with higher moral standards. I’m pretty sure that defines hypocracy…
Is there any other nation where that kind of persistent and vocal self-hatred would be not only tolerated, but popular? I think Chomsky knows the answer.
He could go to Yemen and be jihad buddies with Mr. Awlaki.
I’ve found that as a rule, when a publication’s masthead announces its subject as “art and politics” or the equivalent, its coverage of the former is far superior to that of the latter.
Jack,
“Uncontroversially, [George Bush’s] crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged ..”
First of all, you assume someone as smart as Chomsky could do better than a cheap Nazi analogy or invoking Nuremberg. Secondly, he’s a moral idiot. And third, even if Bush IS a war criminal, it does nothing to let Osama off the hook or make his killing any less deserved.
Finally, I fail so see why everyone’s getting to bent out of shape because he didn’t get “due process?” I’m an avid fan of civil liberties and legal rights, but I feel like this case is an exception. Not because of the crimes for which BinLaden was guilty, but rather because it wouldn’t have made any difference. Even ignoring 9/11, there’s loads of evidence that BinLaden planned, or was indirectly involved in dozens of other attacks (including the USS Cole). Moreover, even with the best attorneys and the most impartial judge, I doubt there’s a jury in the world (or, at least the United States) that would have found him not guilty and set him free. Thus, the debate seems to be whether it was right capture and kill him now, or have him arrested only to be executed later.
Personally, I’m glad we were saved the trouble as well as the political clusterfuck that likely would have followed (and you thought Gitmo was a mess). Am I wrong?
-Neil
… that writer, Noam, who hates his home,
with eyes and mind jaundiced . . .
he never will be missed.
–Dwayne
ARRRRGH!!! Eliminationist rhetoric!!!
The adamant insistence that bin Laden should have had a trail seems to ignore the understanding the HE, (bin Laden) had DECLARED WAR against the United States.
Accordingly, in normal rules of engagement, he was a legitimate target for an act of war. He made himself that target and repeatedly announced that he was that combatant in his many videos and radio broadcasts.
When he was treated as a soldier, as any common combatant in an act of war, suddenly he “should have had a trial”?
No.
I like Chomsky and as a non-American, I can assure you that rather than filling my head with anti-American sentiments, his writings have reassured me that America remains a country populated with mostly-decent people and that the world at large should not give up on the place just yet.
I’m interested to know which part of Chomsky’s analysis you do not agree with:
– Do you disagree with the assertion that the Bin Laden ‘takedown’ was an assassination?
– Do you reject the assertion that the assassination took place within the territory of another sovereign state without the knowledge or permission of the government of that state, in clear contravention of international law and customs?
– Do you deny that Bin Laden had not been tried in any court, and was for legal purposes, an innocent civilian of Non-US nationality residing in Non-US territory?
Don’t misunderstand my arguments here. I do not hate the US. I did not support Bin Laden. I do not feel any sadness at his passing, in fact my instinct – like many others here it seems – is to feel happy that he’s dead, that justice has been done. But none of that is relevant to the issues at hand.
Consider the following scenarios:
1. An iraqi detachment sneaks into the US, storm into Dick Cheney’s house and execute him and another female who was residing there. They take his body and flee, later claiming that they were avenging the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces over the past decade.
2. Without warrants and in violation of a number of US laws, FBI agents raid the home of a US citizen, execute him and another female, and leave. They later claim to have overwhelming evidence that the executed man was a serial killer who had killed hundreds of people.
Have any ethical concerns with the above scenarios? I’d be surprised if you didn’t. So how was the Bin Laden ‘takedown’ any different?
The US is the world’s only superpower. It could take on the rest of the world on its own, and win several times over. Does this mean that ‘might is right’ and it should trample all over international law? Or does it place it under a greater responsibility to uphold the rule of law, and exercise restraint?
I suppose the question boils down to this: Does the US President have the power to order the summary execution of anyone, anywhere in the world at any time for whatever reason? If the answer is ‘no’, then what made it acceptable in Bin Laden’s case? Is this the kind of precedent Americans want to establish for others to follow?
Good post, and the Comment of the Day. You didn’t mention what I consider obnoxious about the post, other than its tone. You can find my view of the ethics of bin Laden’s death here…I don’t want to regurgitate it. https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/05/07/osamas-assassination-the-ethics-elephant-in-the-room/ I wrote that the treatment of bin Laden should not be regarded as a precedent for anything, anywhere. It is sui generis. None of your examples are relevant. The next time a multi-millionaire terrorist kills 3000 citizens in a sneak attack working from a non-governmental, radical organization with operatives working undercover throughout the world, who is protected by a double-dealing foreign power accepting US aid and who has millions of zealot supporters and who has been a fugitive for a decade, I think he better watch out. Other than that unlikely scenario, US principles of justice and due process are safe.
Dick Cheney is not the moral, legal or ethical equivalent of Osama bin Laden, and neither is President Bush. That Chomsky echoes “Truthers” disqualifies him for serious consideration…it is a view that only someone with a completely warped view of American history and culture could have—I’ll excuse any non-American for considering such things plausible, but not any educated citizen. The claim the Bush is more of a “war criminal’ than bin Laden is similarly offensive and simply an expression of Chomsky’s pathology.
I find the line “that the world at large should not give up on the place just yet” objectionable, though I assume that it is merely flip. The US has literally saved the world more than once, and with all its missteps, scandals and errors, it still has been responsible for more good than any other three countries I can think of. It takes a distorter of history and reason par exellance, like Chomsky, to hold otherwise.
Thanks for your reply Jack.
I do agree with you that the US has been a force for good in the world and the world has much to thank the US for – billions of dollars in aid to the third world every year being just one example. I also believe that the vast majority of Americans serving in its armed forces are serving for noble purposes and believe that they are helping to make the world a better place. The US military’s involvement in recent humanitarian efforts in Japan are a good example of this.
I also believe that, unfortunately, there is a small ruling class in the US that has – whether intentionally or out of indifference – misused their power to commit evil. I’m sure you know what I mean here – yes you could quote straight from Chomsky here e.g. the Bush administration, CIA, corporate interests and so forth.
As an outsider the impression I get is that some of the biggest victims of these ‘evils’ are the American people themselves – again you know what I mean (the Patriot Act, health care, drug companies, the military-industrial complex, border patrol checkpoints, foreclosures, sub-prime mortgage crisis, gitmo, abu ghraib, and so forth). I know I don’t need to go into detail because you have no doubt heard it many times before.
By the way before you jump to conclusions my position on 9/11 is ‘anti-conspiracy’ (although there SEEMS to be strong evidence floating around out there to the contrary I just cannot believe that there would be enough US citizens willing to take part in such an operation nor could a government agency carry it out and manage to keep it secret – far too much organisation and manpower required).
Anyway my point is that as an outsider, and as someone who wants to – and sometimes does – believe in the American ideal, I have a sense of foreboding about America’s future. Maybe it’s naivety on my part, maybe it’s a result of distorted historical/political views. I really hope so.
Anyway, congratulations on an excellent blog – your posts are interesting and topical and you deal with dissenting comments fairly and gracefully. I look forward to reading more …
Love you, Jack, but Trafford is clearly doing a better job of keeping a calm, composed, consistent viewpoint here. Perhaps that is because he has the luxury of detachment, not being an American. I can only say bin Laden’s death and its circumstances are a damn good example of how any absolutes of ethics suddenly disintegrate – truly a situation where we would have been damned if we did and damned if we didn’t.
“I have a sense of foreboding about America’s future. Maybe it’s naivety on my part, maybe it’s a result of distorted historical/political views. I really hope so.” Based on everything I have heard or read about how America is viewed by the rest of the world, I think all would be wise to take this comment to heart. No, I wouldn’t dream of thinking I could offer even a qualified viewpoint on this , but I do think Americans need to be aware of – and a little uneasy about – the changing international view of our country. Thank God for forums like this one – should be on any intelligent person’s reading list.
I don’t disagree with anyone regarding how the bin Laden death scenario defies traditional ethical analysis…that’s what I’ve been writing for two weeks. It is an exception, and people have to stop discussing it as if it creates either a precedent or must be condemned as a breach or law or ethics. Law and ethics can’t cover every eventuality.
As to attitudes toward America around the world? Frankly, my dear, I only slightly give a damn. The world is misinformed about America’s actions and motives, and curdled academics like Chomsky are catalysts. US values are profoundly different, and have been since 1776. I can’t worry about the fact that someone who doesn’t understand my values, can’t, and won’t, chooses to criticize me for doing the right thing, and I believe America, within diplomatic realities, should do the same. If the only way to get temporary respect for the United States is to abandon our values, and I believe this is close to the truth, it is a bad trade. Absurdly bad. Of all the arguments for policy change I hear, be it in health care, capital punishment or something else, that makes me feel like screaming, “we’re the only first world nation that does it this way” is #1. Remember that “everybody does it” is an ethics fallacy.
I have a sense of foreboding about America’s future, but it is caused by the fear that we will abandon our best cultural values in a futile and destructive quest for international popularity.
I’d simply define the whole episode under “act of war”.
In 1941, a team of British commandoes landed in Libya for the express purpose of killing or capturing Field Marshal Erwin Rommel at a seaside HQ. Rommel, it must be noted, was utterly unlike Bin Laden, being an honorable soldier whose skills of leadership were admired on both sides. Yet, he was a target. And a legitimate one, as he himself would have agreed.
That raid failed. The one on the Bin Laden Compound succeeded. And, as I alluded, Osama- as a terrorist leader- had no legal or moral protections at all. He was an insurgent and an international murderer. Period.
Only a total intellectual renegade like Gnome Chompsky (my usual term for him!) would deem this otherwise. This is what insular liberal elitism will do to a guy.
Thanks, Trafford, for a thoughtful and objective post. It put into words some of the thoughts I have been having since Bin Laden’s death.