It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Osama Assassination: Whatever Happened To "Innocent Until Proven Guilty?"

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
This is my first thread so forgive me if I mess up in some way so let me start by asking the question in the title of the OP.

Whatever Happened To "Innocent Until Proven Guilty?"

Let me first say that I am not an Islamic apologist in anyway and have myself in the cause of my duties as a soldier bagged and tagged many insurgents and gave orders to do so.

However

There is a difference in terms of those insurgents being armed combatants and operations being carried out alongside with rules of engagement, and NO WAY carried out as just plain old assassination as what it seems the Obama administration carried out on Mayday.

He was unarmed.

Thus should have been arrested and bought to trial.

But it seems that there are indeed a few reasons NOT to bring him to trial;

Lack of proof.... Danger of "reasonable doubt" being a huge defense for OBL as it really has not been conclusively proven that he carried out the 9/11 attacks.
Therefore a public trial would be a huge embarrassment for the government...

I truly believe that all people regardless of who or what they have done should be entitled to a fair trial as written in our various countries many laws or what the hell are we fighting for?

To me, this is assassination/murder dressed up as justice for the aims of political capital for a lame duck president, and if we accept this now, then what will we be FORCED to accept in the future?

This stinks!

edit on 4-5-2011 by BattleFieldPredator because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Osama started a war with the U.S. by killing 3,000 at the WTC.He is not a U.S. citizen so our Constitution does not apply to him.
I personally am glad he is dead and better than letting Eric Holder dither with him.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 

Ok

Prove it

You cant prove it because it will never come to trial, due process has been superseded by summery execution..

Not good

edit on 4-5-2011 by BattleFieldPredator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleFieldPredator
reply to post by mugger
 

Ok

Prove it

You cant prove it because it will never come to trial, due process has been superseded by summery execution..

Not good

edit on 4-5-2011 by BattleFieldPredator because: (no reason given)


We can't prove he did it any more than you can prove he didn't. I personally don't see why anyone would dwell on this issue, nothing can be done. He's dead, either back from '07 or from a couple days ago, or hell maybe he's still alive. What difference does it make? We can't do anything, TPTB are playing their game just the way they want.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

I agree

But I think that a public trial would bring to light too many things that successive administartions would not like the public to know...

And I also think that is a huge understatement!!



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BattleFieldPredator
 


It's unfortunate that you would even need to add a disclaimer.

The government has been consistently successful in using blind emotion to push through agendas where the line between lawful and lawless is blurred. Justice was not "done". I'm amazed that so many will rationalize why it is okay that he was killed. Why wouldn't we want to keep the most wanted man...alive for at least a little longer. The fact that this all went down and he was in the sea in about 12 hours is highly suspect. I can't think of any reason why that is okay?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Hi, let me just ask this :

The victims of 9/11 when they were killed, did they all had a weapon to defend themselves?

I don't think so..Why is so many people talking about the fact that OBL was killed unarmed? to bad for him, 2 shoots was little for what he deserves.

Sorry if I'm the only one that thinks this way but after what he did in 9/11 I don't think there is much more to say in that matter.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Put OBL on a trial that could last for years and OBL would have a World-wide speaker live TV connection to call the yijad in the name of Allah and so--- NO WAY.

I think it's a lot better for the World this way,
even us Europeans and Europan Parliament agree on that.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   


Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

pbs news



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jamaica
 


This is classic deflection, but allow me to retort.

You all know what happened to Osama was simply wrong based on the superior morals and ethics that a free country like the US holds close to its heart and constitution. If you don't feel that ANY man or woman deserves a fair trial for whatever crime they committed, as it is irrelevant in a lawful society, I don't believe you deserve to live in a country that puts law above revenge. Either that, or your country doesn't put law above revenge or there is something even fishier going on.

There were three options in the above paragraph, one makes you look bad, the other makes your country look bad and the third makes your government(not the country or people) look bad. I felt it would be more fair to retort in this manner because you obviously gave people only two choices with your piece; "Either you're a terrorist or you're with us!" (FYI, don't even bother)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AboveTheTrees
 



Put OBL on a trial that could last for years and OBL would have a World-wide speaker live TV connection to call the yijad in the name of Allah and so--- NO WAY.


That is pure speculation. The fact is that you don't know what would have happened. Heck, the normal Muslims could have seen him and thought: "What a nutcase!" You don't know, you pretend to know. Stop pretending to know and stop making decisions based on your ignorance.


I think it's a lot better for the World this way,


Good, your opinion. You are entitled to this. However, what you are not entitled to is:


even us Europeans and Europan Parliament agree on that.


First of all. What the hell is a European? Last I checked, Europe was a continent with 50(FIFTY!) different countries that ALL have their own culture, sometimes partially shared culture, their own languages, their own government, their own borders, their own people and before the fascist monetary policy of the EU came into play; their own currency.

I want people who read this to recognize this bit of disinformation. It is taught in schools to think of Europe as one country under the European Union. This is a complete farce. There is no "European" and the parliament this person speaks of, is kept at distance from the people in European countries - while they make the big decisions individual countries have to uphold - whether THEIR people want it or not.

And for those interested in why the European Union is bad for the people of Europe;

Look up the European Arrest Warrant.
Look up how farmers are told which crops to grow, effectively killing competition.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
He would have spilled the beans and told them how he was a CIA operative and all that.... or something like that.




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

We can't prove he did it any more than you can prove he didn't.


Umm.. We spent trillions of dollars on him and sacrificed thousands of our own men. We should be able to at least prove that he did it. And you can't prove a negative, burden of proof is on the accuser.



I personally don't see why anyone would dwell on this issue, nothing can be done. He's dead, either back from '07 or from a couple days ago, or hell maybe he's still alive. What difference does it make?


Lol, I hope you weren't telling this sort of thing to people after 9/11. "Why are we dwelling on this issue? Your husband is dead. Nothing can be done. What difference does it make to waste your time mourning?"

We are dwelling on this issue because of the implications involved and the precedence it sets. We shouldn't be able to assassinate whoever without evidence. This isn't simply an American thing. International treaty has established that even prisoners of war have rights. All human beings do.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Interesting thought, but i believe the innocent until proven guilty notion was blown out the window with Saddam Husein's execution (what WMD's) but i am no expert in american justice so probably has been long gone,

Hell Even a traffic stop could be taken this way, if driving normally and i am pulled over the officer has no reason to do so unless he presumes me of being guilty of an offence, (would you pull over an innocent person?) even in the handling of said stop, there is assumed presumption that one is guilty or about to commit an offence, just by imposed demeanor of officer (hand on gun aggressively demanding the exit of myself from my nice warm car) OR. even the search of said car "what for officer?" "i'm under suspicion that you may have a concealed weapon or illegal drugs in your automobile"

So i'm going with, this is just political talk to keep people happy when in reality everyone is presumed guilty until further investigation is completed or assassination can be performed (in rare cases)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The problem with the speedy "kill and spill" has less to do with 9/11 justice or rationalizing why killing him and dumping him is better than a long trial. It's the fact that many many people would like closure, and this outcome provides more gaps and pushes the concept of closure even further away.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
You know, we drop bombs and kill people all the time and nobody ever questions the "innocent until proven guilty" dogma. It's a freaking war folks. I don't like the killing of anyone for any reason, but now is not the time to start being hypocrites.

Was Bin Laden a terrorist? YES
Is the world a better place without him in it? YES

To me, that is all that matters.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
One could think that there would have been the opportunity to get important info from OBL if they had just arrested him? I don't get the logic of the act of killing him. I just don't. Killing just feeds more killing.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
For those that have not bothered to look into how you have been deceived by your governments, or for those that want to learn a little bit more about how they are controlled by fear this is the first step to enlightenment
(please do watch all of the 3 videos)




The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a 3 part BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis.
The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BattleFieldPredator
 



Thus should have been arrested and bought to trial.


Arrested by whom? The Pakistanis? They're the ones who found him that nice McMansion of his near the Officer's Country Club.

Where should he have been tried? Pakistan? Has he broken any Pakistani laws? Even if he had, do you really think the current junta is feeling secure enough in the love of their people to risk alienating them further? The United States? What kind of trial do you feel would be appropriate: military or civilian? If civilian, what sort of trial, criminal or civil? A criminal trial would involve a much higher standard of evidence than a civil trial, and charges like "conspiracy" are notoriously difficult to prove. A civil trial would have been, as they say, a "slam dunk." Just play the Al Jazeerah tape and old Osama would have to cut a check for a few billion dollars in damages, but he would walk a free man. Can you imagine the partisan debate in the US over those issues? Then try to find a city willing to host the trial of the world's most notorious terrorist. NIMBY: not in my back yard. The World Court in the Hague, perhaps? They could probably rush the case through there in twenty or thirty years. Osama wouldn't be the first war criminal to die of old age during his trial there. In any event, I'm sure the Arab press would insist that Osama be tried under Shari'ah law. Great. How many Islamic majority nations are feeling so stable and secure at the moment that they'd be willing to shoulder that regime toppling farce?

These are not rhetorical questions. You seem to feel strongly that he deserved a "fair trial." Where, how and by whom? Would you accept the outcome, one way or another?

He who lives by Realpolitik dies by Realpolitik.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
dead men dont talk....




top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join