There's Nothing Exceptional About American Exceptionalism

When I was in sixth grade, my earth science teacher was a former Navy SEAL. The day after Osama bin Laden’s death, we put our lesson for the day on hold and simply talked about this event and how it would transform our nation and our nation’s history. I don’t remember much from that day, mostly because I really didn’t have any understanding of the gravity of the situation. But I’ll never forget the statement he made as we finished up and were about to leave the room: “I’m glad he’s dead.”

It’s a bold statement, freely admitting that you feel relieved, or even happy, to learn that someone was murdered. But, whether rightfully so or not, those were feelings that many Americans shared on May 1, 2011. In his essay “Was There an Alternative?”  Noam Chomsky discusses the concept of American exceptionalism, and makes a claim that, in any other country, following any other event, the way our troops executed bin Laden’s killing would be completely unacceptable—but since it was America doing the executing, there’s no way these acts could be considered intolerable. Chomsky even goes as far as to call the execution “’supreme international crime’—the crime of aggression” (Chomsky 7), further implying that he believes we didn’t even try and find an excuse to finally kill bin Laden, we simply went out and did it. Consistently, Chomsky provides evidence that supports the fact that American exceptionalism played a major role in the event, including an excerpt from an investigation into American military affairs that states, “’The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.’” (Chomsky 4) Chomsky’s goal was to make his readers understand that the attack was targeted at one individual; the attack ignored not only American constitutional laws, but also international laws regarding entering a foreign land. And while one could argue that the justification behind the attack was the events of 9/11, looking at the recent months before the raid, Chomsky believes that the attack was unprovoked.

In President Bush’s speech following the September 11^th attacks, he seeks to create a sense of unity among the American people. He says, “I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.” (Bush 6) Bush alludes to the Constitution here, and uses kind, uplifting words to try and inspire the American people to remain confident in the government’s abilities. But Chomsky seeks to prove that, while we do have principles and beliefs that form the very foundation of this country, just like Bush pointed out, we don’t uphold those values if it doesn’t benefit what we’re trying to accomplish. The beliefs exist—our desire to actively practice them does not.

In the criminal justice system, first-degree murder is any murder that was planned, willful, and had malicious intentions. Based on that definition, Osama bin Laden’s death could be classified as first-degree murder. But of course, no one thinks of it that way. Most Americans would agree that the Navy SEALs did America a service—they were the heroes in that situation, not the criminals. But what if the roles were reversed? What if it was al-Qaeda deliberately raiding the White House, and murdering our president, unarmed and unprovoked? Would al-Qaeda still be the heroes?

This, precisely, is Chomsky’s point. It's the same scenario, but this time, it's not us doing the executing, and immediately it's unacceptable.We make the rules, we enforce the rules, but we see no need to follow the rules ourselves. Osama bin Laden was a criminal, and a horrible human being. But the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. The amendment makes no distinction between someone who stole a pack of gum from a convenience store and the leader of the world’s most infamous terrorist group—the written American law applies to every person who is accused in the eyes of the American judicial system. We might never know if there was an alternative. But it’s safe to assume that, if there were one, America probably wouldn’t have needed to use it; we knew that we would be able to get away with the original plan.