On the day of May 2nd,
2011, many were cheering at the news of someone’s death, and I struggled for a
long time to understand why the end of another person’s life would be
considered a celebration. At the age of thirteen, I didn’t have a full
understanding of who Osama Bin Laden actually was; All I understood was what
other people labeled him as: a terrorist. In no way was killing around three
thousand people acceptable, but the happiness I saw on the day of Bin Laden’s
death stuck with me since.
Nine
days after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush, with a respectful and calming
tone, reassured American citizens by explaining actions that were to take place
in order to protect them from future mishaps with Al Qaeda, with statements
such as, “on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its
outpouring of support.”(Bush). After establishing a bond with trust with his
listeners, Bush goes on to make demands for Taliban- “Close immediately and permanently every
terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and
every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.”(Bush). The transition from welcoming to assertive
insured the death of Osama Bin Laden ten years later.
On the other hand, Noam
Chomsky considers the hypocrisy of America’s choices by using a harsh, yet
informative tone. Looking at the situation from a different standpoint, he
states, “It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if
Iraqi commandos had landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and
dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course).”(Chomsky).
By putting himself in a similar situation that the people of Pakistan were in,
Chomsky proves to the reader, with a satirical tone, the irony of the
situation.
Noam expands upon the irony
by comparing Pakistan’s Law with our Constitution. “[Pakistan’s Law] requires a
colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists
that the ‘right to life’ mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from
government or police action.”(Chomsky.) Chomsky establishes the peaceful system
used by the Pakistani to contradict our actions during Operation Geronimo. “The
Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the
right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the
right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the
nature of the charges and evidence against you.”(law.cornell.edu). In other
words, according to our Bill of Rights, Osama should have had the opportunity to
go through a trial like anyone else.
Chomsky and Bush share
neither the same tone, nor the same approach to Operation Geronimo. By
considering the impact Al Qaeda had on the United States, Bush’s purpose is to
protect his citizens; Chomsky, on the other hand, criticizes decisions made in
the past that are considered counterproductive in the Bill of Rights.
Works Cited
Bush, George W. "President George W. Bush's Address to
Congress and the Nation on Terrorism." 20 Sept. 2001. Speech.
Chomsky, Noam. "Looking Back on 9/11 a Decade Later."
(n.d.): n. pag. Web.
"Sixth Amendment." Sixth Amendment. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.
ReplyDeleteEmily, your post is a very clear and an effective qualify of the prompt. Your intro of reflection from when you first learned about our history’s terrifying event is interesting and relatable. Our generation can relate to feelings of uncertainty and confusion because we have no recollection of the life-changing attack on 9/11. We acknowledge that he was evil for destroying innocent lives and crippling our economy. You successfully analyzed how Chomsky and Bush approached the impacts of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This topic is uncomfortable to discuss, but I am curious if you agree with Chomsky’s point of view of American Exceptionalism.