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: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.

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


I agree..... he wasn't ever going to be allowed to live once we got him. You don't let him live and spout venom at a trial. No offense but the man is/was guilty for the crimes. Everyone involved knew that he wasn't going to be taken alive.

For a man who talked such smack to not have an armed guard around him at all times leads me to believe that he felt VERY protected there surrounded by Pakistani ex military officers and the ISI. It's not our fault that the #1 most wanted man didn't have ability to put up more of a fight.

Moral of the story: You really SHOULD bring a gun to a gunfight....otherwise you are just target practice. I refuse to feel bad for killing a terrorist just because he wasn't armed. It's not like he was born again and not going to do something nasty again. Oh the poor innocent Terrorist.....give me a break.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


The worst war criminals in history all faced a trial before their execution. The same should have happened with Osama. It may seem tedious, but it's also nescessary, we can't be a beacon of freedom and democracy without respecting our own principles of due process and trial by jury etc.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HawkMan11
 


The UN Charter of Human Rights is a fantastic idea.

Which still has nothing to do with this.

If there was a World Wide judicial and legislative group which administrated disputes, crimes, and wars then this would mean something. There isn't. Nor does common law apply.

FURTHER, Osama absolutely DID NOT accept the UN Charter of Human Rights and specifically spoke on the subject. He believed in Sharia for all.

So - his organization is extra-national. His beliefs were anti-Human Rights.

The Human Rights you are pinpointing do not have a place to play out.

Nor does your concept of common-law extend into other countries.

You want that. Then you want a World Wide Legislative Assembly and Judiciary, with a police force. I don't argue that, but I would suggest that the issue with implementation is apparent in both the subject and the environment of this topic and thread.

Even further, precedent agreements of this world convention, specifies the treatment and speaks to the existence of combatants and non-combatants. One could argue that the definition of Human Rights is predicated on knowing the difference between the combatant and the non-combatant.
edit on 2011/5/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


The worst war criminals in history all faced a trial before their execution. The same should have happened with Osama. It may seem tedious, but it's also nescessary, we can't be a beacon of freedom and democracy without respecting our own principles of due process and trial by jury etc.


I have neither reason nor will to take unnecessary prisoners of combat. Particularly when taking them prisoner serves to further their strategy and position. Tedious has nothing to do with it.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


So because the terrorists don't believe in human rights that gives us the moral right to ignore them aswell? Extra-judicial killing is not something anyone who values freedom and democracy should look at as acceptable. I will not mourn the killing of Bin Laden, if he was involved in 9/11 he had it coming to him. That being said, as more and more information is released it's becoming evident that Bin Laden possibly could have been taken alive and tried for his crimes as he should have been. I won't make any further judgements until there is more information on the subject but due process and trial by jury are an important foundation of any democratic society, we should never abandon them.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


To be blunt, it's better for the world for him to be dead. Having a trial, would not have changed the outcome, he would still be sentenced to death, while giving him a platform to incite even more violence and death. Plus we would have the problem of dealing with his remains and having them become of shrine for followers of his ilk. Better for him to be kill and dumped where no one can rally around him.

The Nuremberg trials were more to show the world the atrocities Nazi leadership did, which was unknown to many. With OBL, pretty much everyone knows what he did.

What purpose would be served by having him tried, quite honestly? He was never going to be acquitted and never given a life sentence. Would it make you feel better knowing that he had been tried and then executed?

The world is better off not having Osama Bin Laden alive on it.We waited far too long for that as it is. Would you have felt the same if Clinton had launched a successful Cruise Missile strike on him in the 90's?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by HawkMan11
 


The UN Charter of Human Rights is a fantastic idea.

Which still has nothing to do with this.

If there was a World Wide judicial and legislative group which administrated disputes, crimes, and wars then this would mean something. There isn't. Nor does common law apply.

FURTHER, Osama absolutely DID NOT accept the UN Charter of Human Rights and specifically spoke on the subject. He believed in Sharia for all.

So - his organization is extra-national. His beliefs were anti-Human Rights.

The Human Rights you are pinpointing do not have a place to play out.

Nor does your concept of common-law extend into other countries.

You want that. Then you want a World Wide Legislative Assembly and Judiciary, with a police force. I don't argue that, but I would suggest that the issue with implementation is apparent in both the subject and the environment of this topic and thread.

Even further, precedent agreements of this world convention, specifies the treatment and speaks to the existence of combatants and non-combatants. One could argue that the definition of Human Rights is predicated on knowing the difference between the combatant and the non-combatant.
edit on 2011/5/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


I personally do not believe his views on human rights are relevant when it comes to whether or not he deserves a trial. Conversely, I don't believe he should be able to have a say as to what system of law he is tried under. Oh dear, does that make me a hypocrite?
I also believe that if you say that you will do something, that you should be expected to do it. Whether it happens or not is another matter, and illustrates your point well that the UN charter is a fantastic idea.

And given the intelligence on how he would behave if a capture was attempted, it is highly probable that ST6 resolved the only way it would have been able to in at least 1000 multiple scenarios.

If you notice i said if, when regarding his capture, and it was a big if.

But could he not be tried at ICC if the 1001st scenario he was actually able to be taken into custody? Provided he could be charged with anything after July 2002. Lots of what if scenarios, i know. Or maybe a International Military Tribunal such as the Nuremburg Trials? I realize that the situations are uniquely different, could it not also be a possibility?

And the issue of combatant and non-combatant regarding human rights is a very interesting topic, probably deserving of its own thread if one doesn't already exist. It definitely should be more widely understood and debated in regards to arguments about human rights. Or how to treat known terrorists in combat situations (before and after capture if applicable).

Although I find the word terrorist to be very subjective.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by Aeons
 


So because the terrorists don't believe in human rights that gives us the moral right to ignore them aswell? Extra-judicial killing is not something anyone who values freedom and democracy should look at as acceptable. I will not mourn the killing of Bin Laden, if he was involved in 9/11 he had it coming to him. That being said, as more and more information is released it's becoming evident that Bin Laden possibly could have been taken alive and tried for his crimes as he should have been. I won't make any further judgements until there is more information on the subject but due process and trial by jury are an important foundation of any democratic society, we should never abandon them.


So, you propose that your laws apply everywhere at all time to anyone you so wish to use them on?

Gosh, there are a WHOLE LOT of people in the world who are guilty of a WHOLE LOT of stuff under your laws. Some truly heinous crimes against other humans and ....because the victims aren't US citizens and the criminal aren't US citizens you aren't required to prosecute them?

You think you are taking the moral high ground. When really, you're still rolling around in the mud and pretending its finery.
edit on 2011/5/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





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?


He should have been tried as a mass murderer in the international courts.. You know?... That same place where Hitlers henchmen was tried?
... After all... his alleged crimes effected many more countries apart from the US
edit on 6-5-2011 by BattleFieldPredator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Enemy combatant only works when the combatant is armed.... You are not allowed to shoot at unarmed soldiers as this will very quickly make you a war criminal..

Wake up

he was shot because he would disclose too much if it went to trial..
edit on 6-5-2011 by BattleFieldPredator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The hell with "innocent until proven guilty".
What happened to respect for international law, due process and trial by jury.
Since when have we replaced these things with vengeance based cowboy vigilantism?
This is not justice, this is arrogance.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dethduck
The hell with "innocent until proven guilty".
What happened to respect for international law, due process and trial by jury.
Since when have we replaced these things with vengeance based cowboy vigilantism?
This is not justice, this is arrogance.


Not to mention a means of putting away for good the answers to many questions

However the death of one man will not stop the truth from comming (9/11 et al) out but will be the catalyst for it..



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleFieldPredator
reply to post by Aeons
 


Enemy combatant only works when the combatant is armed.... You are not allowed to shoot at unarmed soldiers as this will very quickly make you a war criminal..

Wake up

he was shot because he would disclose too much if it went to trial..
edit on 6-5-2011 by BattleFieldPredator because: (no reason given)



SEAL TEAM 6 did not know if OSAMA BIN LADEN had a SUICIDE BOMB VEST under his clothes!!

As such. I am WILLING to give SEAL TEAM 6 the BENEFIT OF DOUBT and trust SEAL TEAM 6's judgement if they thought OSAMA BIN LADEN posed a THREAT to their LIVES or the success of their mission.

let it be known that I DESPISE those that question SEAL TEAM 6's decision to take the shot. SEAL TEAM 6 are the best of the best at what they do. your sad attempts to play monday night football is in vain!!


SEAL TEAM 6 challenges any US politician to question their methods or judgment or integrity!!

edit on 6/5/11 by FuGGer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FuGGer
 





let it be known that I DESPISE those that question SEAL TEAM 6's decision to take the shot. SEAL TEAM 6 are the best of the best at what they do. your sad attempts to play monday night football is in vain!!


No they ARE NOT the best


My unit is wayyy better than them!

AND we would have got him out alive...

Unless ordered not too..

Unless ordered not too..

Think about that...



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by BattleFieldPredator
 


SEAL TEAM 6 had ORDERS to KILL on sight or APPREHEND and detain OSAMA BIN LADEN.

SEAL TEAM 6 MADE their decision based on the circumstances of the operation on that night.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Basicly, it was a revenge. I find it humorous from a country who touts justice and leagal system, does something like this. Vicious revenge, aaaaah bloooood I R Needing moooore bloood. Animals.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarl80
Basicly, it was a revenge. I find it humorous from a country who touts justice and leagal system, does something like this. Vicious revenge, aaaaah bloooood I R Needing moooore bloood. Animals.


OSAMA BIN LADEN has known for almost a decade that he was a WANTED man in the USA.
During which OSAMA BIN LADEN had ample avenues to give himself up and avail himself to legal proceedings.

SEAL TEAM 6 was sent in to KILL on sight or APPREHEND and detain OSAMA BIN LADEN.

SEAL TEAM 6's decision to KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN was NOT based on REVENGE. SEAL TEAM 6 took the shot based on their SAFETY and the SUCCESS of their MISSION.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
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)


Why are you defending a cold blooded murderer? As someone said earlier, were the 3,000 whom were executed given a trial or a weapon? Did those mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, etc. know they were going to be killed while at work, unarmed?.

I cannot believe you are somehow connected with the military! I'm not sure if I misunderstood your OP or not?

Since when does a war criminal in the time of war (reason for war irrelevant) deserve the same courtesy as innocent civilians. You really need to study Bin Laden's history to speak to the so called innocence of this man.

For all about to jump in and say "But the U.S. CIA trained him" whatever!!!! Who gives a crap! What he decided to do with his training was his choice and he is responsible for his own actions!

Take a look at what his own son said about dear ole dad:



“From what I knew of my father and the people around him I believe he is the most kind among them, because some are much, much worse,” Omar bin Laden, who was raised in the midst of his father’s fighters, told ABC News in an exclusive interview in February 2010. “Their mentality wants to make more violence, to create more problems.” Omar bin Laden turned his back on his father’s philosophy, a remarkable step for a man in an Arab culture where it is a sin to disobey his father and taboo to openly criticize him. It was doubly significant for Omar bin Laden because his father had picked him to succeed him as the leader of jihad


/?p=71122]Newsnet

Now don't you think his own flesh and blood knew whom he really was? So much so that he turned away from him and brought public dishonor to his entire family. Certainly you understand what "honor" means to Islam.

This entire debate, about "was it fair", is moot. Life is not fair I think we all know that by now.

Thanks,
Pax



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarl80
Basicly, it was a revenge. I find it humorous from a country who touts justice and leagal system, does something like this. Vicious revenge, aaaaah bloooood I R Needing moooore bloood. Animals.


So every criminal in the world including war criminals deserves to be tried under U.S. law? Regardless if they are citizens of U.S.? What are you talking about??????? NO NO NO!!!!! That right is reserved for the people who are from this country. I am sick and tired of the people who bash the U.S. repeatedly and then beg for U.S. rights!!!!!! What hypocrites!

Pax



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 




Why are you defending a cold blooded murderer?


What?


As someone said earlier, were the 3,000 whom were executed given a trial or a weapon? Did those mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, etc. know they were going to be killed while at work, unarmed?.


Oh I see what you are saying. They did it so it's okay for you to do it right? It makes sense, revenge ya know. Thanks for revealing that bit of personal information. But let me wake you up here...LAWS are there for a specific reason, and that reason being, that people like you, don't go running around killing anyone in a frenzied revenge attempt screwing over millions of people: Iraq, Afghanistan - and then he's in Pakistan.

You should really start taking pride in the fact that you live in a country where the law is upheld, but apparently, not so much in your head. Revenge is sweet huh? ;-)


I cannot believe you are somehow connected with the military! I'm not sure if I misunderstood your OP or not?


I am not connected with any military.


Since when does a war criminal in the time of war (reason for war irrelevant) deserve the same courtesy as innocent civilians. You really need to study Bin Laden's history to speak to the so called innocence of this man.


You see this? This is where you demonstrate that you have no clue about laws. I never said he was innocent but even a guilty man is supposed to have the right to a trial - that is one point of law; to separate guilty and innocents. Of course, not when there is a gun-battle and it is made impossible to take him in alive, but that is another discussion. I don't care for Bin Laden by the way, he could have died ten years ago or thirty years into the future - my life would remain not impacted. Would yours?

What I do care about is how people are made to believe that laws count, then for the laws to be stepped on time and time again - and if that is not enough - the stepping on laws is made into something people can cheer for.

Did you know overthrowing the American government is also against the law? Did you know killing without trial is also against the law? How long until the regular joe can't make a distinction and starts doing what he likes irregardless of law? The government is setting an example after all.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join