Covering Osama bin Laden’s death: Unanswered Questions

Hector Bryant L. Macale
With research from Karlin E. Galao, Mari Joie A. Ladia, and Venus Clarisse C. Tenorio

When wanted Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan in the first week of May, the local press relied on reports sourced from the wires and international news organizations for information.

Background material on bin Laden—accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001—and his terror group Al Qaeda, as well as the repercussions of his killing, also came from these foreign-sources.

Some efforts to provide a Philippine context to the issue were evident in the coverage. A number of reports looked at the possible effects of bin Laden’s killing on the country, such as on the security situation, and possible retaliatory attacks from Al-Qaeda linked local groups such as the Abu Sayyaf.

The larger questions surrounding bin Laden’s killing, however, were largely unanswered in the coverage. To be fair, some print and online columnists did write analyses that provided some context. But those questions remained unanswered in the news coverage.

PJR Reports monitored the major newspapers, TV programs, and websites from May 1 to may 15. During the period, the press was also occupied with other major local and international news, such as the April 29 wedding in Britain of Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales and Catherine Elizabeth Middleton and the May 1 beatification of Pope John Paul II.

Wire reports

The Manila newspapers relied on reports from international wires and foreign news organizations on the details of the killing and the reaction of various governments and other groups. Several profiles of Osama bin Laden, often described as the “most wanted face of terrorism”, were published, along with backgrounders about his group Al-Qaeda and his possible successors.

Some of these stories appeared as lead stories (“World hails death of Osama bin Laden: Justice has been done, says US president”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 3; “‘Justice has been done’: Obama says bin Laden killed by elite US forces in Pakistan lair”, The Manila Times, May 3).

Others were in the front and inside pages (“40 minutes to history” BusinessMirror, May 8, p. C2-C3; “US forces kill bin Laden: Justice has been done, Obama says”, Malaya, May 3; “Al-Qaida vows revenge for Osama bin Laden’s death”, The Philippine Star, May 7;
“US raises security alert for Americans”, Inquirer, May 3)

Some papers such as the Star republished a statement from bin Laden’s family which questioned the military operation that resulted in his death.”If (Osama bin Laden) has been killed in that operation as the President of United States has claimed then we are just in questioning as per media reports why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world. It is also unworthy of the special forces to shoot unarmed female family members of bin Laden killing a female and one of his sons,” the family said in a statement. “Most importantly, when it is a common knowledge that (bin Laden)’s family is residing at one place outside (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), why they were not contacted to receive his dead body. His sudden and unwitnessed burial at sea has deprived the family of performing religious rights of a Muslim man.”

Local context

A number of local reports looked at the security situation in the country, especially in Mindanao, in the light of bin Laden’s death. Some solicited the reactions of Al Qaeda-linked groups such as the Philippine cell of Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayyaf. Some government officials and experts on terrorism were also interviewed over local TV.

For example, the press looked at the security measures local authorities were putting in place . (“”Bin Laden’s death won’t affect Phl’s overall security landscape‘”, Star, May 11; “PH steps up security measures”, Inquirer, May 3, p. A11; “Terror watch focus is Mindanao: Security panel says no specific threats monitored in Metro Manila” Malaya, May 5). Another Inquirer report stated that the Abu Sayyaf threat continues despite bin Laden’s death. It also reported the financial and training support given to the group by personalities and groups that have links with bin Laden’s al-Qaida. (“Abu Sayyaf threat in PH stays despite Bin Laden’s death”, May 4, p. A17)

A few reports looked at bin Laden’s connection with extremism and terrorism issues locally, such as a May 7 report in TV5’s InterAksyon.com “Bin Laden’s death won’t end extremism, terrorism – MILF”.

ANC’s Rundown interviewed a University of the Philippines professor of Islamic Studies on the effect of the death worldwide. Last May 4, TV Patrol interviewed Norodin Alonto Lucman, a Filipino classmate of bin Laden at King Abdul Aziz University and who became a Muslim rebel leader in Lanao del Sur in the 80s. He provided how even when he was younger, bin Laden was already interested in the concept of revolution.

The press also reported that some Filipino Muslims held a memorial for bin Laden. A May 6 Inquirer report added that some local secular and civil society organizations held a march-rally in honor of the slain leader. (“PH Muslims honor Osama: March from mosque to US embassy on Friday”) Some reports like the May 6 report in the Star reported Malacañang’s view that Filipino Muslims should not consider bin Laden a hero. (“Don’t consider Bin Laden a hero, Pinoy Muslims told”)

Missing questions

A number of print columnists and online pundits asked the questions that were not answered in the news coverage.

Manila Standard Today columnist and lawyer Harry Roque Jr. looked at the circumstances of his killing from a legal perspective. Writing that the right to life is a “absolute under human rights law,” Roque argued that bin Laden’s killing was not justified under international humanitarian law, and cited legal bases for this view.

“A trial is preferable to use of force. A rule-of-law state employs, to the extent possible, procedures of law and not procedures of force,” Roque wrote, quoting the Israeli court which had earlier ruled against Israel’s policy of assassinations. (“View from Malcolm” May 12, p. A4)

The Daily Tribune publisher and editor in chief Ninez Cacho-Olivares echoed a similar view. “(W)hile it is a relief to know that Bin Laden is finally gone, it is disturbing to realize that the United States and its ‘special forces’ which is in reality a group of assassins, are into highly-covert operations to kill whoever they have targeted to be assassinated”, she wrote in her May 4 “Frontline” column (“Double standard”) “Truth of the matter is that while bin Laden and his fundamentalists are proven terrorists, so are the western powers that kill their foes.”

Star columnist Yoly Villanueva-Ong , noting that several ironies emerged from bin Laden’s death, asked in her “Citizen Y” column last May 7 (“Hallelujah!”): “For one, Bin Laden was not found in the remote caves where he was long presumed to be hiding, but in a huge compound in Abbottabad, less than a mile away from a Pakistani military base and academy! Was Pakistan protecting the 9/11 mastermind while collecting $1.5B yearly in US aid? Was it justified to shoot an unarmed man? Is torture an effective tool to gather intelligence? Did the US violate the Muslim burial rites?”

In his “Public Lives” column last May 5, Inquirer’s Randy David noted the delicate nature and implications of bin Laden’s death. “Those who triumphantly raise the secular banner of American nationalism as an instinctive response to the killing of Bin Laden are falling into the same fundamentalist mindset that has guided the violence of al-Qaida. They fail to see the trauma that global modernity and its principal champion, the United States, have inflicted upon traditional societies,” David wrote. “This is not just about pre-modern cultures acting irrationally in a world they can no longer grasp. This is, more than anything else, a narrative of the humiliation, oppression and exploitation of entire peoples caught up in an arrogant secular world which has stripped them of their subjectivity. “(“Avoiding a clash of fundamentalisms” May 5, p. A12)

Bulatlat’s Benjie Oliveros wrote that while bin Laden’s alleged role behind the 9/11 attacks is “reprehensible and could not be justified no matter what his reasons were for doing it,” the U.S. operation that killed him raised a lot of questions, including the fact that the operation was a kill mission and therefore a form of political assassination and extrajudicial killing.

“The means employed by the US could not be justified by its objective of achieving justice for those killed in the 9-11 attacks nor by its aim of putting a stop to terrorism. On the contrary, it merely committed another injustice without ensuring that acts of terror would stop.” Oliveros wrote. (“The end does not justify the means”, May 6)

Bulatlat also published a commentary by Paul Craig Roberts on the issue, who described bin Laden as a “useful bogeyman to feed the profits of the US military/security complex.” “Why did it take ten years to find him?” asked Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the US treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts was also skeptical of the event, writing: “The smell reeks from the triumphalist news reports loaded with exaggerations, from celebrants waving flags and chanting ‘USA USA.’Could something else be going on? No doubt President Obama is in desperate need of a victory. He committed the fool’s error of restarting the war in Afghanistan, and now after a decade of fighting the US faces stalemate, if not defeat. The wars of the Bush/Obama regimes have bankrupted the US, leaving huge deficits and a declining dollar in their wake. And re-election time is approaching.” (“Osama bin Laden’s Second Death“, May 13)

A bit obvious

A few columnists were a just a bit obvious, however, and merely noted how the period saw other major local and global events aside from bin Laden’s killing such as the April 29 wedding of British royal Prince William and Catherine Middleton and May 1 beatification of Pope John Paul II. The Star’s Babe Romualdez in his “Babe’s Eye View” column compared the global “shock and awe” that followed bin Laden’s death with the “romantic euphoria” the public had earlier felt during the April 29 wedding. (“Shock and awe”, May 8 )

Confusion over “Osama”, “Obama”

As news about bin Laden’s killing erupted, a number of U.S.-based reports incorrectly referred to the slain al-Qaeda leader not as “Osama”, but “Obama”—referring to U.S. president Barack Obama.

Some local reports did the same, but not in the same number as those in the US. Some of those reports appeared in TV Patrol (May 5) and Aksyon (May 3),

Feedback from the public

The press immediately sought out the reactions from the public on the issue. The Star asked its readers last May 7: “What is your reaction to the US report that Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden is dead?”

Few had anything to say, however, other than to express relief.

Comments are closed.