I am sorry to have to disagree with fellow Canada Free Press writer Kelly O'Connell about the killing of Usama bin Laden; my sense is that we were perfectly justified in performing that service for peace loving mankind.
bin Laden was a battlefield casualty. Yes, he was on a battlefield just as much as any other warrior armed with weapons and ready to use them. Just because he was caught napping and exterminated as have many others throughout the history of warfare, makes him no less a full fledged warrior.
Had the killer of 3,000 innocent civilian Americans not been napping, be assured that he would have killed as many Americans as he possibly could.
Combat on the battlefield knows no Rule of Law; it is 'kill or be killed' combat law. And to say that bin Laden was unarmed is facetious, that man had access to many weapons and many of the very high tech variety. He has often been photographed with super automatic weapons in his hands.
I doubt there were many, if any, people in the entire world who did not know of this man's guilt. Only those physically incapable of knowing would fit that category.
Pictures in great volume and wide distribution of bin Laden wielding a deadly weapon and prepared to use it have made the rounds of the entire planet. In those pictures bin Laden himself personified an invitation to other warriors to "come and get me if you dare" - and so they did. Now, because he was a battlefield casualty, he is dead.
To say his domicile was not a battlefield if to profess ignorance of modern Islamic battle sites. The Islams fight in any place they happen to be; they have no designated battlefield, it is where they make it, indoors or out. They have even disgraced their own worship areas in mosques using them as fortresses and prisoner accommodations.
The analogy O'Connell offered on WWII Nuremberg Trials does not come close to the current strife. Those were mostly high ranking officials, mostly high ranking military who seldom, if ever, brandished weapons in a battle situation. They were more non-warriors who were guilty of non-combat crimes.
In warfare you don't expect nice, methodically justified attacks - you engage your enemy where you find him. If he is in the right place at the right time for you he must be eliminated before he eliminates you.
Example: My platoon suddenly comes up on a small group of enemy soldiers a short distance away; they haven't noticed us. What do we do?
These are mean nasty and vicious killers. Do we get in position and then open fire, on-the-spot coordinated and planned to account for each soldier's elimination; or, do we try to capture these experienced killers and bring them to trial? And just how many do we bring to trial during the course of a combat campaign?
And if it is the latter, just who do we bring to trial; all the enemy soldiers or just certain ones; and during the chaos of fighting how do we determine just who is who? Rank is seldom exposed during combat.
Usama bin Laden was a cool, vicious criminal who, as stated, was responsible for killing 3,000 American civilians, not military people, the only trial he should get is the one between he and his god after he has paid his punishment here on earth.
Let our military do what they are paid to do. A person who has never been through any combat experience should never try to judge or suggest a course of action involving combat readiness and decision making.
The average layperson just can NOT ever FEEL the experience of living through a combat incident. There is just NO other experience quite like it. It's pure folly for any inexperienced person to say, 'It should have been done like this or that.' I know that feeling having spent four months and 8 days of consecutive combat against the Japanese on the island of Guadalcanal in 1942.
Much as I dislike doing it, I have to refute the notion that bin Laden should have been made to stand trial. The Muslims would have made that trial an unbelievable circus of distortion, disruptions, and deviltry with the possibility of no verdict ever being reached.
Let our military do the jobs for which they were trained; COMBAT LAW.
Gerald A. “Jerry” McConnell, 92, of Hampton, died Sunday, February 19, 2017, at the Merrimack Valley Hospice House in Haverhill, Mass., surrounded by his loved ones. He was born May 27, 1924 in Altoona, Pa., the fifth son of the late John E. and Grace (Fletcher) McConnell.
Jerry served ten years with the US Marine Corps and participated in the landing against Japanese Army on Guadalcanal and another ten years with the US Air Force. After moving to Hampton in 1957 he started his community activities serving in many capacities.
He shared 72 years of marriage with his wife Betty P. (Hamilton) McConnell. In addition to his wife, family members include nieces and nephews.
