The Political Art of Words: Self Defense vs. Assassination

Why Do Words Matter?


Politicians have adopted many skills from the marketing/branding/advertising world.  One of the most significant is language used to describe an event.  Everybody puts a spin on an event by using certain words.  We do it when we describe events in our lives that we dislike.  We use favorable language when talking about the failures of those we love.  Words color events, which is why journalists have to be so careful.  Most news sources want to claim true objectivity, that they are just reporting the facts.  Think about what words people are using the next time you listen to any political debate.

*cough* death panel *cough* secret Muslim *cough*

An Act of National Self-Defense or Payback Mother Effer?


The assassination of Osama Bin Laden has been labeled "an act of national self-defense" by US Attorney General Eric Holder.  That's one way of saying it.  We could also listen to James Brown sing in his famous hit "Payback" and nod our heads at the shouts for REVENGE!  This is another way of saying it.  The main reason the words matter is because some critics are questioning the legality of the mission.  Should it be legal to shoot an unarmed man?  That's an important question.  (White House Spokesman Jay Carney stated on Tuesday that Bin Laden was not involved in the firefight and was unarmed.  A recent NYTimes article states Bin Laden had an AK-47 and a pistol was in reach.  I can't tell you which one to believe, but going from "uninvolved in the firefight and unarmed" to  duel-wielding AK-47 with pistol is a little fishy...)  Even if he was armed, another good question is, should it be legal to operate unilateral missions in foreign countries and kill people?

Eric Holder was also quoted by the BBC as saying,  "It was a kill-or-capture mission. He made no attempt to surrender."  I believe this with all my heart.  He made no attempt to surrender.  Neither did his wife, who rushed the special forces soldiers and was shot in the leg.  Perhaps the soldier who fired the shot was caught up in the heat of the moment.  If he had an AK-47 in his hands or even that pistol, I don't blame anyone for not asking questions.  I can understand that.  But if he wasn't armed, to say that because Osama Bin Laden made no attempt to surrender made it OK to shoot him in the face...well, I don't buy that story.    


No matter how armed he was, why don't we just make it easy and call it payback?  I think people can live with that.  Counter-terrorists win.