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: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Yes, he deserved a trial like every other criminal. Hell, we'll give a baby rapist/killer a fair trial, but not him. Seems like someone was fearing what he would say in an open court.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Yes,He deserved a trial i would have liked to have seen him tried for his crimes but it would have become a media circus but everyone deserves a fair trial even Bin laden the evil scumbag..Peace sugarcookie1



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
In my opinion yes he deserved a trial.

I think Noam Chomsky said it best in his article about the subject:

There is Much More To Say - Chomsky



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
If you can take a suspect alive, I believe that person deserves a FAIR trial.

Michael Moore is a political and comedic genius. Few people can make me laugh as hard.
edit on 16-9-2011 by gentledissident because: poor form



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Ugh, the View.

What a bunch of harpies and gossip hens. She looked so uppity and proud talking about American "justice", because she's done so much to earn the right to talk like that.

Did not want to start my night with this.

edit on 16-9-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Living in HIS house...are you serious?

Yes. You are referring to the people who were killed during the raid on the Abottobad compound, right? That was his house. It was where he lived. His bedroom was there, and all his things, and his family members. It was the place to which he intended to return when he traveled, his abode, his domicile, his place of permanent residence.

Maybe a couple of the people killed didn't live there, they were just visiting, but that takes us back to your claim that they had no ties to Osama bin Laden. When you visit a terrorist leader in his house, it is because you have ties with him. They weren't salesmen or Jehovah's Witnesses, they were fellow members of Al Qaeda or their immediate family.


It just took 10 years for the most advanced technology in the world to find this house. Yeah sorry dude I'm not buying it

You aren't buying that it was his house because it took a long time to find it? Do you have any idea how many houses there are in the world? Do you think we know who is in all of them, all the time?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75

Originally posted by rudigerfoodiger

here is an article on cracked.com that makes a perfectly good case that bin laden is a fictional construct.
osama bin laden



I think that was satire....I mean it is a comedy site, and they are making an argument based solely on the different spellings of his name. Anyone can tell you that ANY English spelling of his name is simply a phonetic approximation, because his original name is not written in English characters.

It's either satire.....or it's the single dumbest article I've ever read from Cracked.


i wrote the article, and i assure you, i meant every word of it. it may be easy to dismiss as a joke, except that i know first hand that its no joke, because i wrote it with conviction. think it through, his name change, his phony fictional death, the fact that his role mirrors samuel goldstein's from the novel 1984, the fact that he was never accused by the fbi of sept 11 masterminding.....the article is subversively hidden in a humour site, but it challenges the reader with all the right questions. and we have no business believing bin laden has been used in any way other than a fiction to create war hysteria and focus our hatred toward. 1984 style.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
rarely do i agree with Moore BUT on this issue i most certainly think we should not have assassinated an unarmed old man... please - if you even think it went down like it did = how could a young strong navy seal not been able to subdue Osama... unfortunately most of the seals that 'killed' him all died a few weeks later in an "accident" Yeah right!!'



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
A trial is for someone who pleads not guilty. He admitted planning and coordinating the hijackings and subsequent crashes. No, he did not deserve a trial.

With that said, I wish we could have taken him alive.


His admission wasn't a legal one.. it's not even "evidence".. just video of someone saying things.

"Evidence" is that which is ruled germane & credible by a judge in an open fair process..

..and he did not "plan" "9/11".. flying jets into buildings to foment war is an old idea from none other than the US military..."Operation Northwoods".

At best he allegedly carried out an old US govt "domestic operation" intended as a "false flag"...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Its kind of hard to bring a man to trial if he died in december 2001...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I don't know why you haven't gotten any stars so I gave you one. Everything you said makes sense and I agree with you fully.
America can police the world but doesn't have to go by their own rules?
If they are fighting for the good of humanity, you would think they would lead by example.
Hmmm that's because America is a crock of sh*t. They are the real terrorist, invading other country's for their own needs and lying to their own citizens.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by brettrix
rarely do i agree with Moore BUT on this issue i most certainly think we should not have assassinated an unarmed old man... please - if you even think it went down like it did = how could a young strong navy seal not been able to subdue Osama...

Because it was suspected Osama had a suicide bomb, like other terrorists have used when faced with capture. Also, US forces are not required to subdue combatants, no matter how old they are. (And Osama was not that old--we have older on active duty.)


unfortunately most of the seals that 'killed' him all died a few weeks later in an "accident" Yeah right!!'

Yeah right, indeed. This didn't happen.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:17 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.


Except on 9/11 there was no 'war on terror'.. no enemy combatants, none of that.... can't retro actively hold people accountable for laws that did not exist.. lol..

Only a Nazi would be cool with the govt passing a law today.. that enabled the gestapo to kill anyone they allege is retro-actively guilty.. thats like calling obls death a "retro-active abortion"..lmao..

... he's a murder / conspiracy to commit same suspect



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Except on 9/11 there was no 'war on terror'.. no enemy combatants, none of that.... can't retro actively hold people accountable for laws that did not exist.. lol..




Don't worry...
There are colorful pictures and sound..

August 1998

Skip to 2:20


edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


"Because it was suspected Osama had a suicide bomb, like other terrorists have used when faced with capture. Also, US forces are not required to subdue combatants, no matter how old they are. (And Osama was not that old--we have older on active duty.) "

Perhaps then the govt should have sent an arrest / police SWAT team.. trained to preserve life, process evidence, testify in court, arrest suspects.. rather than trained killers.

When the king, or hitler, or the gestapo, or saddam, or inset boogie-man decided outside a court of law someone must die.. they dispatched an assassination squad of trained killers.. they're evil bastards!!.. when the US party leader de jure does the same, eh.. it's cool... they had a note, and a few of their buttbois said it was ok.. so did various TV personalities.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


So if you or someone accuses me of something you have the right to stomp on me like a roach with no trial?
Well I accuse you of being dumb and a prick, so do I get to stomp on you now?

Who gets to decide who is a good enough person to be allowed this favor of a trial?
Saddam Hussein "wasn't" a good man, from what I've been told, never met him so I couldn't tell you. But he got a trial. Wait what about this example, John Wayne Gacey and other people like him were not good people. They all got trials and sent to jail. Don't bother explaining yourself, I can make a guess on what you will say.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
how the hell do we even know seal team 6 even killed bin laden? how do we know or not if he was already dead from all those reports claiming he had died from illness?

this is all a good discussion but do you people really believe we actually caught and killed him?

if we did kill him, then why was benizir bhutto assassinated after she claimed hes been dead for over some time now? feedback.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
A Seal Team of a couple dozen young Americans sat as Jury. Judge Sig Sauer passed the verdict and sentenced the defendent. The appeals court composed of John Wayne, George Patton and Andrew Jackson will hear the appeal.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Except on 9/11 there was no 'war on terror'.. no enemy combatants, none of that.... can't retro actively hold people accountable for laws that did not exist.. lol..

I think (but am not sure) you are referring to the prohibition against ex post facto laws. This is irrelevant, as Osama bin Laden was not charged with violating any law ex post facto, nor was the operation that killed him a judicial punishment for violating any law.


Only a Nazi would be cool with the govt passing a law today.. that enabled the gestapo to kill anyone they allege is retro-actively guilty.. thats like calling obls death a "retro-active abortion"..lmao..

There is no guilt or innocence at play here. Osama bin Laden was killed by the executive branch, acting under the President's Constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, his statutory authority to use appropriate force against those he identifies as responsible for 9/11, and his statutory authority to use the CIA in covert action. There was no judicial component to the process. No legal guilt attached to Osama bin Laden, retro-active or otherwise. Nor was any such finding of guilt necessary to carry out the operation. Presidents don't need the judicial branch to adjudicate the guilt of enemy fighters, nor do they even have to concern themselves with whether or not enemy fighters are guilty of violating any US law at all. All Obama needed was to write the following on a piece of paper:

I have determined that the following operation is necessary to the security of the United States of America: Go to Pakistan and kill bin Laden. The CIA will be in charge and JSOC will help them. Signed, Barry O.

Then he had to show that piece of paper to a few people in Congress, and it was done. (Some argue that even that wasn't necessary, because the operation was never meant to be denied and therefore was not a covert action in the sense of 50 USC 413.)
edit on 16-9-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: two words



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
First off, it's kind of hard to face Justice in the Court of Law if you have not been charged for anything. This is the case with Osama Bin Laden. He has never been charged by the ICC or any other nation that holds the power to charge him for the role they said he played for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. Even when he held the spot for the Worlds Most Wanted, the 9/11 event was never included for the reasons as to why he was wanted in the first place. The FBI had even stated that there was little evidence for them to go on for them to even charge Osama Bin Laden, so thus the charges cannot be laid if there's no case or evidence in the first place. So taking Bin Laden and making him stand trial would've been one hell of a hassle compared to dropping 5.56mm NATO round in his dome.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join