Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rick Santorum Tells Rep. Ron Paul To Stop ‘Parroting Osama Bin Laden’ In CNN Debate

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


In the article I posted it clearly states that the Taliban would turn him over to a neutral country for trial IF we could produce evidence of bin Laden's guilt. Had we produced evidence, he would have been tried in an International Court of Law within a neutral nation. The U.S. denies due process to alleged terrorists, this is why a neutral country was required. I find what the Taliban offered to do to be very fair. They're not going to just hand a guy over because we say so, but they're not going to rule out the possibilities of our charges.

I think Bush had a good reason to ignore it and commence bombing. As per your source, the Taliban offered bin Laden up for trial as well during the early 1990's, same as they did for 9/11. Had we given substantial evidence, they would have extradited him to an International Court where he would have been tried. But in 1990 and 2001, we would have needed to produce evidence to back our claims. Then, if found guilty, he would have been turned over to us for execution. If a prosecutor charges you with a crime and you fight back, 3 things will happen. Either he will pursue a conviction, make a deal, or drop the charges. When a prosecutor does not pursue conviction, its because he doesn't have, or doesn't believe he has enough evidence.

I acknowledge that my previous statement concerning the Taliban "handing him over if evidence was produced" could be misleading for some. I mistakenly assumed that most people understand this type of proceeding must be conducted in an international court of law. It wasn't as simple as them dropping him off from a plane in the U.S. and calling it a day.




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 


In the article I posted it clearly states that the Taliban would turn him over to a neutral country for trial IF we could produce evidence of bin Laden's guilt.

I concur! In other words: They had no intention of handing him off to the US! That clearly constituted a refusal to comply!


Had we produced evidence, he would have been tried in an International Court of Law within a neutral nation.

Really? Where did you get that from? The Taliban had previously offered options, but I certainly didn't find an "International Court of Law" offered in any of them. What "International Court of Law" are you refering to?


The U.S. denies due process to alleged terrorists, this is why a neutral country was required.

That statement is NOT accurate. The United States has tried quite a few terrorists in civilian courts, even though "unlawful enemy combatants" are not ENTITLED to due process in our courts. Had the Taliban turned bin Laden over to the US prior to hostilities, he would not have been considered an "unlawful enemy combatant", and would have been very likely entitled to the best due process laws in the World.


They're not going to just hand a guy over because we say so, but they're not going to rule out the possibilities of our charges.

They should have! It seems they completely ignored the possible consequences of their refusal to do so.


I think Bush had a good reason to ignore it and commence bombing.

I find that to be an interesting comment coming from a "truther". I do agree with you on that point!


As per your source, the Taliban offered bin Laden up for trial as well during the early 1990's, same as they did for 9/11. Had we given substantial evidence, they would have extradited him to an International Court where he would have been tried.

There you go with "International Court" again. The only "court" options the Taliban ever offered are:
1) A three-nation court

2) Some sort of process under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference

3) A trial before a group of Ulema (religious scholars) in Afghanistan.

None of those is an "International Court"!


I acknowledge that my previous statement concerning the Taliban "handing him over if evidence was produced" could be misleading for some.

That was not the part of your statement that I took issue with.

This IS that part:

the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden

That made your whole statement false! They never "OFFERED TO GIVE US BIN LADEN". Not even when I originally thought they did! The article I linked to indicated that they did, but an article that it, in turn, references says differently.


I mistakenly assumed that most people understand this type of proceeding must be conducted in an international court of law.

No...: You mistakenly assumed such a court existed!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by samcrow

With all due respect, if those people don't get that imperialist foreign policy can have negative consequences, then there IS a problem with them. This hyper-nationalist suspension of reality garbage does nothing but promote further problems. Paul was right, and idiots don't get a pass because their feelings got hurt.


You can't work that way as a politician. Even if the people are wrong. You have to approach the problem in a different manner. You have to educate people without insulting them and convince them without being condenscending. Simply, you have to persuade people. You don't do that with insults.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


I found the original article I read concerning the Taliban and their offer to turn bin Laden over was an article on the Taliban, not Osama bin Laden, my apologies, but here it is and it backs up my first post:


On September 21, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the U.S. could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks.

However, after bombing them for about a month, this was their next offer:


On October 14, the Taliban offered to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country in return for a bombing halt, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement. On October 4, the Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan blocked the offer as it was not possible to guarantee his safety. On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the U.S. made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

So there you have it, he was merely offered to be given to us with evidence, at least that is all the article says. Then after 4 weeks of bombardment, they offer to turn him over to a neutral tribunal for trial. That is what we call an international court. It is a court that tries an individual that has charges against him from a foreign nation.

As far as due process is concerned, does Guantanamo Bay ring a bell? Detainees are not given due process. This is where detainees from the war in the middle east are held. It is outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, therefore, due process is not a right given to them under our constitution. What the government is doing there is purely criminal.

I hope you didn't take the Bush comment incorrectly. I think he ignored the offer and started bombing because he knew he didn't have evidence to support the charges. Such as the fact that none of the Hijackers were from Afghanistan but rather from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and the Untied Arab Emirates. Another problem would have arisen when 7 of the terrorists turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia


Peace



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by samcrow

With all due respect, if those people don't get that imperialist foreign policy can have negative consequences, then there IS a problem with them. This hyper-nationalist suspension of reality garbage does nothing but promote further problems. Paul was right, and idiots don't get a pass because their feelings got hurt.


You can't work that way as a politician. Even if the people are wrong. You have to approach the problem in a different manner. You have to educate people without insulting them and convince them without being condenscending. Simply, you have to persuade people. You don't do that with insults.


I don't necessarily disagree with you, in a strictly political procedure sense. However, this kind of ignorance is a lot more excusable 30 years ago pre-internet and pre-smartphone. Now you can literally know everything there is to know about everything within seconds. These people are not only ignorant, they're willfully so. And proud of that fact. As we've seen with the rise of the fringe right, these are not people that are uniformed and willing to listen. They're uniformed and convinced that they know everything. You can't persuade those kinds of people. Thus, my original assessment stands: If they got their feelings hurt, tough. Stupidity isn't an excuse.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Rick Santorum has as much chance of being POTUS as I do. It's funny how he keeps touting how he beat Dem incumbents in all his races but he always forgets to mention how Dem Bob Casey beat him by 18 % points in the 2006 race for the Senate. Santorum is a smarmy little punk who I'm sure got beat up everyday in high school.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 

If he didn't get beat up, he should have.
Santorum is a tool. The GOP has a lot of them, because they can afford them.
The GOP doesn't own Ron Paul, and they hate him for it.
Ron Paul is only human. He is trying to help the country, but is the country good enough for Ron Paul?
The jury is still out.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 


So there you have it, he was merely offered to be given to us with evidence, at least that is all the article says.

Why do you keep insisting that Osama was "offered to be given to us"? Regarding the Taliban offers, that IS A FALSE STATEMENT!

The first article you linked to says "they would hand him over". It does not say to whom they would hand him over.

EVERY time the Taliban offered to "turn bin Laden over", there were ALWAYS stipulations regarding whom they would turn him over to, AND IT WAS ALWAYS TO A THIRD PARTY OF THEIR CHOOSING.

Here are some of the articles I found:

"Our position is that if America has evidence and proof, they should produce it. We are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in the light of the evidence," Zaeef said.

The Taliban has stated that any trial process would have to be instigated by the Afghan Supreme Court, with senior Muslim clerics from three members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference participating as observers.

Source


Mr Kabir said: "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate." Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third country for trial, he said. "We could discuss which third country."

Source


For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

Source


President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.

Source
Here is my challenge to you:
Show me a VALID source that indicates that the Taliban would "hand" bin Ladin DIRECTLY over to the United States, even if we did produce evidence of his guilt. Good luck!


However, after bombing them for about a month

Exageration does nothing to validate a quote. It only diminishes one's credibility. The date of the following article is Oct. 15, 2001:

After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

Source


they offer to turn him over to a neutral tribunal for trial

No... they offered to turn him over to "Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law".


That is what we call an international court.

Perhaps you and the "truther" movement do. I certainly don't! "Islamic Sharia law" is a contradiction of both "neutral" and "international".


It is a court that tries an individual that has charges against him from a foreign nation.

That looks like a reference to the "International Criminal Court":

The International Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently and will in no way before 2017 be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).

It came into being on 1 July 2002—the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force—and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.

Source
It seems Osama's crimes wouldn't have been covered.


As far as due process is concerned, does Guantanamo Bay ring a bell? Detainees are not given due process. This is where detainees from the war in the middle east are held. It is outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, therefore, due process is not a right given to them under our constitution.

Of course not! The US Constitution only guaranties "due process" to citizens of the United States.

1) Why do you feel "detainees" should be entitled to such a right?

2) Do you feel that the Taliban would reciprocate by using our "due process" laws?

3) "Gitmo" detention camp didn't open until 2002! How would that apply to Osama bin Laden at the time of the Taliban "offers" of 2001?

See ya,
Milt



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 


I hope you didn't take the Bush comment incorrectly. I think he ignored the offer and started bombing because he knew he didn't have evidence to support the charges. Such as the fact that none of the Hijackers were from Afghanistan but rather from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and the Untied Arab Emirates. Another problem would have arisen when 7 of the terrorists turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia

In reference to:

I think Bush had a good reason to ignore it and commence bombing.

... only shows and extreme contradiction on your part.

To even insinuate that I took your comment incorrectly, profoundly demonstrates your propensity for dishonesty!

See ya,
Milt





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join