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.

 

Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Saudi Arabia runs "Chop Chop Square" where they behead Rabbi's or anyone with a bible they catch in their country.

Saudi funded 9-11.

Saudi wanted the US military out of their country. They funded Osama to make it so.
2007 Saudi said they weren't accepting US dollars for oil anymore.

So no, Osama doesn't deserve a trial.

We should have B-52's bombing Mecca right now.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


something fishy about the whole thing if you ask me. how better to put this thing to rest by perading him in front of the courts (who incidentaly should be the one to decide if he lives or dies, not some headline grabbing president whos main consern is his publicity rating). instead they killed him without concrete evidence he actually was responsible and dumped his body at sea without leaving any proof other than what you choose to beleive they say they had.

yet another example of the american peple being denied the truth. Maybe they were scared of what he would say and what could be uncovered?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
Of course he deserved a trial, but apparently, he was shooting or had a gun pointed at the Seals. We should be proud that the Seals shot him, before he took out another American. I rather him be shot dead, than take out one more life.

No, he wasn't openly armed. But that doesn't matter. He was a legal target. While he was free, the United States had every right to kill him. The idea that Bin Laden should have been tried is really very foreign to me, and I see a tinge of elitism in it, too. No one ever says some poor AK-toting slob in the foothills of Afghanistan, killed by an Air Force bomb, deserved a trial. But the big guy at the top--he deserves a trial. What's the difference? If Bin Laden deserves a trial, so does everyone in Al Qaeda we have killed. If it is legal for us to kill any combatant in Al Qaeda, it is legal for us to kill Bin Laden. You should not have different rules for the poor slobs with guns and their commanders living the good life in Pakistan.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


What if they are at complete odds in their beliefs with our Constitution? What if they are all about it's total and complete destruction and of whats outlined in it? This gives us a Right to extend or force it's outlines with our laws and beliefs on them?

If looked at deeper in an objective manner this becomes quite a quagmire..

edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: Clarification.


No.

Not if we believe in our principles. If we truly believe in what we are fighting for, then we should extend those very rights to the same people that are fighting to destroy them. We should appoint them a counsel, and we should take them in front of a judge and a jury, and we should dole out the appropriate punishment.

Except, as I said before, in acts of war and battlefield situations. In a battlefield situation I see no problem even with torture. If we can garner real-time life-saving information, then we should get it by any means necessary. A few hours, or a few days later, the situation is different and all Constitutional rights should apply.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by TravisT
Of course he deserved a trial, but apparently, he was shooting or had a gun pointed at the Seals. We should be proud that the Seals shot him, before he took out another American. I rather him be shot dead, than take out one more life.

No, he wasn't openly armed. But that doesn't matter. He was a legal target. While he was free, the United States had every right to kill him. The idea that Bin Laden should have been tried is really very foreign to me, and I see a tinge of elitism in it, too. No one ever says some poor AK-toting slob in the foothills of Afghanistan, killed by an Air Force bomb, deserved a trial. But the big guy at the top--he deserves a trial. What's the difference? If Bin Laden deserves a trial, so does everyone in Al Qaeda we have killed. If it is legal for us to kill any combatant in Al Qaeda, it is legal for us to kill Bin Laden. You should not have different rules for the poor slobs with guns and their commanders living the good life in Pakistan.


Whether he was armed or not is something we will have to take the Seals word for.

But aren't most F.B.I. Most Wanteds wanted dead or alive? And Guantanamo Bay is supposed to be for prisoners awaiting trial, those slobs with AK-47s. If someone is caught in the very act, that makes him an enemy combatant.

I don't agree with methods of torture to get information. I think a lot of young men over there have been so conditioned by their leaders to believe lies about us. And that is a lot of the problem. Those in Afghanistan remember the war with Russia. We helped Afghanistan in that war. At the same time the Taliban was fighting Russia, they were subjugating and violating the rights of girls and women.

People here have forgotten the Ayatollah of Iran. He imposed laws against women that were so horrific and yet only Jimmy Carter addressed it. I remember when he expelled all Iranians from the United States. But it all goes back to they way they are taught. How do people propose we protect the rights of women and girls in those countries? These very same men who people here want to preserver their human rights are the ones who allow the violation of the human rights and dignity of women there. So it becomes a never ending circle. When the men there protect the rights of women, then they should expect their own rights to be protected.

We can't say respect the human rights of the ones who violate the rights of their own people. Saddam Hussein killed Khurds for being Khurds. His sons raped 14 year-old girls. What about the rights of Khurds? Have we forgotten them as well?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


What if they are at complete odds in their beliefs with our Constitution? What if they are all about it's total and complete destruction and of whats outlined in it? This gives us a Right to extend or force it's outlines with our laws and beliefs on them?

If looked at deeper in an objective manner this becomes quite a quagmire..

edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: Clarification.


No.

Not if we believe in our principles. If we truly believe in what we are fighting for, then we should extend those very rights to the same people that are fighting to destroy them. We should appoint them a counsel, and we should take them in front of a judge and a jury, and we should dole out the appropriate punishment.

Except, as I said before, in acts of war and battlefield situations. In a battlefield situation I see no problem even with torture. If we can garner real-time life-saving information, then we should get it by any means necessary. A few hours, or a few days later, the situation is different and all Constitutional rights should apply.


And hence the problem, if we can't impose Constitutional rights beyond the borders then we can't extend them and they can't be applied. The Constitution is for the United States. It has no effect anywhere else in the world.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


But if I am not mistaken, any American military installation and Embassy are considered to covered under the Constitution, so as long as a person seeks cover under it.

But if you are outside it, then you are not under jurisdiction of the Constitution. I think that is the only way it works while we are in other countries.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Why?

We can impose the Constitution in our own actions. Military actions, interrogations, arrests of cell leaders, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, etc.

There are plenty of places we can exercise the rights of our Constitution in our interactions with our enemies.

I'm not saying we should police the world and make them all live by our standards, I am only saying that in the areas we choose to invade on moral grounds and attempt to "liberate" or impose human rights requirements, then we need to be consistent. We can't choose to liberate some country, and at the same time tell them they don't deserve all of the rights we enjoy. What kind of message does that send?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 

As has been said everyone deserves a trial.

As for his being killed in the raid, if the rules are generally if they are armed the get targeted.

No the US is not Judge Dredd. Dredd has more class, style and cool. Dredd or DHS/TSA.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well, if you American's want to bring "democracy" to the Middle East, then you should be prepared to bring your 6th amendment with you too



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Tried in absentia, convicted in the media and murdered at home in bed.

What a shining example we set for the world with our newly redefined example of American Justice.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Why?

We can impose the Constitution in our own actions. Military actions, interrogations, arrests of cell leaders, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, etc.

There are plenty of places we can exercise the rights of our Constitution in our interactions with our enemies.

I'm not saying we should police the world and make them all live by our standards, I am only saying that in the areas we choose to invade on moral grounds and attempt to "liberate" or impose human rights requirements, then we need to be consistent. We can't choose to liberate some country, and at the same time tell them they don't deserve all of the rights we enjoy. What kind of message does that send?


I for one do not think we should police the world. But we can't impose Constitutional law in other countries. We can say this is how it is done and if you would like it where you are, then you can have it here, under your own laws that guarantee rights to all people. But we know all people there are not guaranteed rights under the laws they impose. So it is not a matter of imposing our Constitution, it is a matter of letting them know that we have a right to protect our citizens here. If protecting our citizens here means that we will fight them, then it has to be done. Each country has the responsibility toward its own citizens.

Are we at war with the Afghanistan Army? No. Are we at war with the Pakistan Army? No. They know this as well as we do. So why is the average slob holding an AK-47 if he is not in the army of the country he lives in? He may say we have invaded. Then why is he not part of the army to make us leave? He is usually in a faction, not a revolutionary faction, but one that still denies the rights of his neighbors to live. What did Kuwait do to be invaded? Nothing.

I believe France still had an army to fight with, but was not powerful enough to stop the Nazis. Many people joined the Resistance to fight the Nazis. The difference in us and the Nazis is that we are not systematically committing genocide. Those factions in Arab countries do believe in genocide of different groups of people.

But our nation has a right to defend the citizens here. I would hate to think what would happen the moment our government tells us that it will no longer defend us. Would genocide happen today? Yes it would if certain groups of people knew we were no longer defended.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
Well, if you American's want to bring "democracy" to the Middle East, then you should be prepared to bring your 6th amendment with you too


Griffo, you are not American. Settle this discussion for us, would you want our Constitution imposed on the UK?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
you serious? osama wasn't there, 'Osama Bin Laden' is a CIA tactician the original osama died back in 01.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
No one deserves a trial. A trial is a "favor" granted to good men only.

The truly evil ones we exterminate on sight. The same way we crush cockroaches under our feet when they run out from behind the cupboards.

Who ever thought of giving the roach or the rat a break?

About the only problem men have, is that some tribes see other tribes as the rats.

Exterminations, and genocides, are all good things, when you're the exterminator.









edit on 16-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: spelling



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I believe the precedence is in "We the People" and it is capitalized, meaning a collective body.

"The People" is the collective body of Americans, the body that established the Constitution. But the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment are not extended to "the People." They are extended to persons. You cannot read "persons" as "the People;" the Constitutional Convention chose their words carefully, and if they meant the People they would have written the People. Nor can you read "persons" as "citizens;" the Fourteenth Amendment extends certain guarantees to citizens, and others to the broader category of persons. If citizens and persons were the same group, that distinction would not have been made.


But I want to know at what point does a person expect their Constitutional rights to be enforced if they are found guilty?

Some Constitutional protections are invalidated by the Constitution itself when you are convicted of a crime. Others are a matter of "due process of law," which means the right may be abridged if the legislature and judiciary say it may be abridged. The degree to which a right may be abridged must be reasonable, and serve a legitimate state interest. Other rights are completely inviolable. The state can deprive criminals of their lives under due process of law, but it can never compel them to testify against themselves in criminal cases.


... So we don't extend the Constitution beyond the borders.

Correct, but that's a matter of territoriality, not nationality. The US has some extraterritorial laws governing its citizens, and some countries claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-citizens for crimes against humanity, but for the most part, it's a matter of where, not who.


Prisoners currently do not have the right to vote, and that is a Constitutional right.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee a general right to vote. It only has protections for certain classes that have historically been denied the right to vote. One's right can be removed by due process of law, as long as the law doesn't discriminate against one of those protected classes. ("Class" isn't really the right word, but I hope I got the idea across.)


Mohammed Atta was here on a Visa, that means he was a temporary citizen.

No, it doesn't. There is no legal condition of "temporary citizenship." Only persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. Mohammed Atta had a non-immigrant visa, so he wasn't even on the path to citizenship.


Osama bin Laden was not here, therefore not a citizen at all.

One's location has no bearing on one's US citizenship. If Osama bin Laden had been born in the United States, he would have been a US citizen anywhere in the world.


Constitutional laws do not go beyond borders, therefore there was no imposition of Constitutional laws for him.

This is correct. Territoriality, not nationality.
edit on 16-9-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: quote fix



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Yes because he was accused of 9/11 with no evidence and its kinda hard to put someone on trial that is already dead. I feel sorry for all the people killed during his raid which was most likely innocent people that had no ties with him whatsoever
edit on 16-9-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


We are not "enforcing" the Constitution. We are acting upon its principles. We are not telling anyone else they have to extend these rights to their own people, but we are saying, "Here are the principles the US is founded upon, and the principles we live by, and we will use these principles as our guiding force in all of our interactions."

What if Osama was picked up for shoplifting? Should we shoot him on the spot, because he is not a citizen of the US?

Osama was not killed in some firefight in Afghanistan or Iraq, and both of those countries now have existing governments that are not at war with the US. Osama was supposedly killed in his bedroom of his own home, in Pakistan.

Is it OK to invade someone's home and shoot them dead, even if they might be unarmed or surrendering, because they are not afforded basic human rights outlined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, because basic human rights only apply to US citizens?

What about rape? Or theft? Can we assume it is ok for a US citizen to cross over into Canada and rape and pillage the countryside, because they are outside the bounds of our border where the Constititution and all human rights apply?

I know I am putting up some ridiculous examples, but how are they different than the Osama situation? Either we have a set of morals, or we don't have a set of morals. We cannot conveniently pick and choose where to apply them.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
Whether he was armed or not is something we will have to take the Seals word for.

The SEALs aren't talking about it, so we must take the word of the leaking politicians. I think the most recent story is that he was unarmed.


But aren't most F.B.I. Most Wanteds wanted dead or alive?

Here are the ten most wanted. I don't see anything like "dead or alive." Money is offered for information leading to arrest, not for corpses.


At the same time the Taliban was fighting Russia, they were subjugating and violating the rights of girls and women.

The Taliban never fought Russia. It didn't even exist until the 1990s. Individual members may have fought the Russians under other organizations, but not the Taliban.


What about the rights of Khurds? Have we forgotten them as well?

We protected the Kurds with a no-fly zone and other operations for over ten years. Our pilots were shot at thousands of times, and Saddam put bounties on their heads. I don't know who the "we" is in your question, but the US government worked very hard to protect the Iraqi Kurds.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
Yes because he was accused of 9/11 with no evidence and its kinda hard to put someone on trial that is already dead. I feel sorry for all the people killed during his raid which was most likely innocent people that had no ties with him whatsoever

They were living in his house. Do you let people who have no ties with you whatsoever live in your house?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join