Poor, Poor Bin Laden...He Didn't Get A Trial.......Well Perhaps This Is Why He Didn't Deserve One!

Originally posted by yeti101How about the cambridge english dictionary definitions?
dictionary.cambridge.org...

armed fighting between two or more countries or groups,

and if you agree tribes fighting each other is war becuase they are clearly defined groups then you must accept bin ladens group capable of war. There's no difference, they're not countries they're groups.

you just want the word war to mean whatever you personally interpret to mean. You even choose 2 meanings when it suits you. The rest of your post is off topic so i wont bother replying.

Well there wasn't armed fighting between two countries or groups.... this is the part you are missing.
It was not an act to start a war and neither did the act happen within the context of war.



It was an act of terrorism... simple.



ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


See... simple.



It's been fun but I'm just repeating myself now.

Originally posted by blupblup

No, It was an act of terrorism.... really.... it was.

Are you saying that all acts of terrorism my not also be considered acts of war?

Apart from criticising someone's intelligence and being so arrogant and pompous you mean?

Please provide examples of my poor behavior. So far in this thread I've been called a fool and a moron; I suppose you would have me just accept the personal attacks without retaliation?

That's what made me join this discussion and conduct myself in the manner that I am.

So, you joined this thread to continue the personal attacks on me?

The fact that he's dead doesn't bother me.... hang the ****er.... firing squad, lethal injection... whatever.... I couldn't care less.

But PROVE, in a court of law, that he had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.... PROVE all the allegations.

No proof needed, he provided his own confession.

They couldn't so they took him out in such a way that we'll never know.... he would have had some interesting things to say about the government and CIA I'm sure.

Convenient huh?

And you would consider him a reliable, unbiased source? And again... you're calling me a moron...
An elite US Navy Seal team reports that the target has been terminated; good enough for me.

Lo and behold people, remember who created the "war on terror" and made it their priority while invading two nations, yes you got it, USA.

Originally posted by babybunnies
He didn't need a trial, he admitted that he carried out the attack.

People have been laying out comparisons to the Nuremburg trials. However, at Nuremburg, the high ranking officials of the Third Reich on trial were all denying their guilt.

Big Difference.

May I ask a question or two?

If I commit a murder, and admit it, do i bypass all judicial proceedings prior to sentencing?

Also, if i was given a trial and enter a guilty plea, does the trial cease and sentencing begin?

reply to post by HawkMan11


Yes.

A trial is to determine guilt. If there's a guilty plea, there's no trial.

The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations. "In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.

A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing.

"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law."

He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

Quardian.co.uk

Originally posted by MrDesolate
reply to post by HawkMan11

 

Yes.

A trial is to determine guilt. If there's a guilty plea, there's no trial.

Thank you for the reply.

So, if we could take him alive, he could re affirm his confession, the prosecutor has no obligation to show any other evidence, and he can be sentenced concluding the hearings.

So what exactly is the problem with taking him alive? In that case he wouldn't get the fictional trial being debated anyways. Please note I'm not saying why didn't we, or we should have.

If he pleads guilty, that satisfies the legal standard to convict and sentence. No need for further Investigation according to law.

Is the problem that in an International Military Tribunal that may not be the the standard? And he will get some sort of legal proceeding even after confession? I truly don't know.

reply to post by blupblup


I think bin laden stating in 1998 that he would attack america wherever or whenever he could makes him a viable target. Even if 9/11 didn't happen.

Do you really doubt bin laden gave the OK for 9/11? Even if he didnt plot the details himself. He was their "Amir" or leader becuase he had the cash. I have no doubt he gave the go ahead for that operation.

Originally posted by HawkMan11

So what exactly is the problem with taking him alive?

Maybe the members of the Seal team felt their lives were in danger? Personally, I would much rather have them err on the side of caution than to return home in a body bag.

reply to post by HawkMan11

So what exactly is the problem with taking him alive?

the problem is in the eyes of jihadis we now have a hostage. What do you think the first thing they would do is?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by HawkMan11

So what exactly is the problem with taking him alive?

Maybe the members of the Seal team felt their lives were in danger? Personally, I would much rather have them err on the side of caution than to return home in a body bag.

I do not disagree with this. If they feel their lives in danger they have protocol to adhere to. By the nature of their jobs they are not in charge, and if they disobey an order they answer to congress. They also have families.

But i think my point was based on an if scenario. If they could, what is the problem with doing it? It seems both sides would be satisfied, no?

Scenario:

He is taken alive.
At whatever proceeding he pleads guilty.
Prosecution rests.
He is sentenced, most likely to death.
His sentence is carried out

Side A: Gets a conviction and the blood they want

Side B: Gets the satisfaction of knowing his sentence is carried out under rule of law.


At this point I'm not trying to make an argument for either side

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by HawkMan11

 

So what exactly is the problem with taking him alive?

the problem is in the eyes of jihadis we now have a hostage. What do you think the first thing they would do is?

Indeed, we would have a hostage in their eyes.

However, if someone is trying to intimidate and threaten me, it will not deter me from seeking justice. Especially in matter where my country as a whole is concerned.

Additionally, Does anyone (from all sides) find it interesting that if we "do not negotiate with terrorists", that we would let their threats get them closer to the demands that would be made in the negotiations we don't have? I've heard many administrations make the claim, about not negotiating. But then we are told from both sides that there are things we can and cannot do based on the "terrorists' reaction. Is this not a negotiation? And how is this acceptable to any of us, no matter where we stand in the political spectrum?

reply to post by HawkMan11



so you have no problem with americans being taken hostage whereever the jihadis can get their hands on them? Innocent civilians being executed becuase you want to see bin laden in court? Your freaking insane im glad your nowhere near the whitehouse.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
I don't believe Bin Laden was a saint by any means, but who told you he was bad?? GOVERNMENT.....So you immediately believe them, right?? Think about it

How about the dozens and dozens of videos he released where he talks about killing all of us infidels?

How about his support for terrorist acts committed against us on camera?

That's all the proof I need to determine if he's bad or not.

And The Fact he was funded and trained by the CIA?

reply to post by Darth_Prime

the mujahidin in general were funded by them during their war with the soviets, bin laden was part of the arab mujahidin in Afghanistan. Yes it was a huge mistake by ronald reagan not to listen to Gorbachev about the islamic threat.

Bin laden funded a lot of stuff himself in Afghanistan too.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by HawkMan11

 

so you have no problem with americans being taken hostage whereever the jihadis can get their hands on them? Innocent civilians being executed becuase you want to see bin laden in court? Your freaking insane im glad your nowhere near the whitehouse.

When did I claim I wanted to see him in court? I think he's dead. There are many opinions as to when, but i think at least most of us agree he is dead. How could this appearance in court that I allegedly want take place?

And how could you assume I have no problem with Americans being taken hostage? I could very well be one of those hostages one day. This is only my personal opinion, but I hope that my country doesn't give in to the demands of the people holding me captive just because I might die. For all I know giving into those demands could cause the eventual death of more of my fellow Americans. Other people may feel differently but thats just my opinion.

reply to post by HawkMan11


ok you asked what the problem is with taking him alive i wrongly assumed thats what you wanted. I tell you there was never any intention to take him alive despite what the whitehouse says. Too many potential problems to deal with.

The ONLY option was to kill him.

It was the same for the UK with the iranian embassy hostage situation. The SAS went in to kill them , they were told there was to be "no ongoing problems" ie court cases or anything. Thats why 2 of them, even though they were unarmed, were lined up against a wall and shot.

it funny though the SAS used similar excuses. The soldiers were cleared of unlawful killing. 1 said he thought 1 of the terrorists had a hand grenade on him. The other said he thought he was going for a gun, sound familiar?

This is why I am more afraid of my fellow americans than our gov.
I know where our gov. stands, I don't know where our citizens stand, there are too many views and different prioritys.
Coke or Pepsi ?

reply to post by yeti101


All too familiar indeed

Originally posted by redzareptile
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

By no means am I justifying war my friend.... I think that killing people to show that killing people is wrong as well.
If you read my earlier posts I said that this whole decade of war,killing and invading was based upon a lie. I don't think OBL did it with out the help of our governments ( yes the UK is in this too). He has been the fall guy for all of this and I think there has to be some moral middle ground to reach here.

I lost family that day and find it hard to turn the other cheek! It is even hard to have all this discussion without drudging up hard feelings.

I think radicalisim by Christian, Jew, Islam is wrong.... It's a bunch of people killing others because you don't believe what they do.

My brother and I were raised not to hate or judge. He was killed by whoever did this and his only crime was to show up to work that day.

Maybe my anger and grief is mis-placed and has slightly skewed my belief system but can you blame me??

Thanks for replying. I was angry and I'm sorry for being so.

My concern is only with the barbaric attitudes of a few. Yes radicalism is wrong, I, myself was never disputing that. Check my post history, i've condemned many of the insane radicals a thousand times. But, my fear is to see many of my American friends also fall down into the pit of vengeance.

It would have been easier, fairer and maturer to capture Bin Laden alive. I know he was undoubtedly a murderer, a bastard and a radical.

But a trial would have been the best way to deal with him. Not an execution.

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss. I only hope you are dealing with it as best as you can. I wish you the best.

Peace