How would having the war criminal armed make it "seen to be more just"? His violence was not expressed directly in his compound in Pakistan, but in numerous far away countries including the United States. Would justice be better served by waiting for him to come armed into other countries undertaking yet more violence?

This is not a man who was an elected (or even consented-to) leader of a country, but one who was an outlaw from the beginning. He would only ever have been taken by force; this leaves a tragic choice: kill him, thus putting an end to his very real threat to many other people; or capture him, and enter into prolonged debate over what forum for justice would be suitable, while encouraging other fanatics and "martyrs" to follow his example. I believe it is important to look closely at the practical aspects of the situation before arriving at an ethical judgment.

Taking the life of another person always diminishes our own lives and separates us from God, but when it is necessary to protect the innocent, we may grieve the necessity, confess the brokenness and separation, and ask for mercy. We can also recognize over and over that God always grieves the death of any of God's children, however far they have gone away from the Divine Presence.

And let's be fair: although we should not celebrate anyone's death, when someone like this dies we can, with honesty and integrity, celebrate that for a time and a season, we may sit each under our own vine and fig tree, alone and unafraid.

@Peggy,
Amen! You nailed it very well! Hope you won't mind if I 'borrow' your words in talking to my friends.

I think Williams is naive and has never been in a dangerous war situation and had to make split second decisions surrounded by the enemy.

@Towen--thank you--feel free! Seems to me the more we talk about our complex responses to these critical situations, the better prepared we all are to deal with them. (Ninja Christian educator!)

Typical gobbledegooky mincing of words by the ABC.

June Butler

I am probably going to be sorry that I jumped in, but I am not so sure that what the ABC says here is far from what I think. I appreciate that taking him captive alive would have posed practical difficulties, but practicality is not necessarily the ultimate arbiter on all things. Leaving aside what he had done to "deserve" what he got, I do think that had he held up his hands in surrender and we shot him anyways, there would have to be questions about the moral rightness of this. I am not sure that summary execution would be seen as a particular moral high point. If he resisted arrest but had no weapon, then this is more difficult. Could he have been taken without mortal force? In a charged situation, would it have placed those taking him captive in jeopardy not to have fired? It is hard to know without clear details. If he was unarmed but rushed the guards and was attempting to harm them, then again the use of "deadly" force may have been justified.
We have had cases aplenty of excessive force prosecuted against police officers for employing deadly force when it was not required. I think that is what the ABC is getting at when he speaks about being "uneasy."
I honestly wish that we had a term other than "justice" for some of these issues as well. Overwhelmingly, when the bible speaks about "justice" it refers to economic justice, and this is far different from "criminal" penalties. The criminal codes from the Torah are hard to use in a modern situation given that death was a punishment for many things that none of us would apply today. Our ideas of "justice" are more complex. Does even a terrorist criminal deserve his "day in court" is an important question. The "day in court" in our system is predicated on the presumption of innocence. Does that apply here? Does a court trial have other beneficial effects for society other than deciding whether someone is guilty and what punishment is deserved?
If the ABCs comments are seen as "woozy" or "obscured," then I can understand it. We are far from unanimous in these important questions.

Osama Bin Laden was a law unto himself and a threat to peaceful communities everywhere. As a brother wrote me today, he presented us with a moral dilemma not unlike Bonhöffer faced when confronted with Hitler. I agree with the ABC's unease -- none should feel easy -- but as Bonhöffer's witness suggests, imperfect justice can sometimes be better than no justice at all, and occasionally our discipleship costs us our loftiest ideals, including our sense of absolute moral rectitude.

I would have answered the questions "I don't know": I wonder why the ABC couldn't do the same.

JC Fisher

Check out this interview that CBC's As it Happens did with Donna Marsh O'Connor, spokes person for "9/11 families for a peaceful tomorrow." It would humble any person of faith. If link one won't work, click on link two and go to As it Happens for Monday part II. God bless America's peacemakers.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1906256326

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/2011/05/02/monday-may-02-2011/

Shameless self promotion, wherein I argue it was a suicide.

http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-game-theorist.html