Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

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)

guess he wasnt paying attention to the embassy bombings the uss cole and the first wtc attack

fact is they have been at war for years right up until the only president ever called it for what i was a war

reply to post by Cobra.EXE


You make good points.

I didn't believe the O.S. from the start, they were tripping over their stories from the get go.
Got to love the photo they released with them sitting together watching it go down.
It's a fake picture, of fake leaders, watching a fake raid, on a fake threat.

well, OP, most of us know that OBL was a CIA asset who died in 2001; what we saw this year was staged. he also didn't do 9/11, but he DID do(AFAIK) the thing in sudan in '98,(khobar) and other acts. that said, yes, he deserved a trial. we are a nation of laws. we have a constitution. but, i do see the other side of it too. if he had committed a terrorist act that killed a family member of mine, I'd want to kill him myself.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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.

You don't send police on combat operations against enemy combatants in less-than-permissive territory. You send your own combatants, you arm them to the teeth, and you tell them to get the job done and get out before the locals have time to react.

And you really should read up on police shootings if you think they care about preserving any lives but their own once the shooting starts. Most police are fine people, but they don't have the fire discipline of a military counterterror operator.

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.

"A note?" Article II of the US Constitution is "a note?" Public Law 107-40 is "a note?" The National Security Act is "a note?" You obviously have no respect for our legislative process or the powers it has granted to our president, so why are you so gung-ho about our judicial process? If Osama bin Laden had been tried, convicted, and peacefully executed after 15 years of appeals, you would still be claiming "buttbois" and "TV personalities" railroaded him.

Oh, and you really shouldn't use "buttboi." It's a slur for male receptive anal sex partners. Maybe you have some religious or philosophical objection to homosexuality, or you find anal sex distasteful; you're free to hold such an opinion. But using slurs in public degrades you as much as it does them, and lowers the tone of the discussion.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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.

Your kidding me right?
The police? SWAT? Yeah, they are good and do fine against civilians that go off the deep end here but across the ocean fighting those blood thirsty maniacs is a completely different story.
Part of SEAL Team Six's 'job description' is VIP captures, they are absolutely trained to move in, eliminate opposition, and capture their target with as little resistance as possible.
They are trained IMMENSELY more than a police squad or SWAT team is for this.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

The crime occurred on US Soil, US laws apply. (If we are talking about 9/11).

You are missing one crucial point - it has never been determined whether a "crime" took place at all or not. By most accounts, it was an act of war, as was the demise of bin Laden in the field. Until and unless it is determined that a crime took place, then NO jurisdiction applies - not US or any other. This is one of the reasons that a "trial" would (not "could", but WOULD) be problematic. US law only applies to US nationals in acts of war - crimes committed during the prosecution of a war are under the Geneva Convention, prosecuted at The Hague (or at least that's where it used to be prosecuted). Then ANOTHER problem enters the equation - neither OBL nor.al Qaeda are signatories of the Geneva Convention, so it can be argued that the Conventions do not apply at all. Where was OBL's citizenship? Saudi Arabia revoked his Saudi citizenship, so where was his citizenship? Wouldn't that country also have a vested interest in the welfare - or prosecution - or one of their own?

No, a simple statement that "US law applies" or "is the only law that matters" or any of the like is conceited, hubristic, and sure to be met by a plethora of protests. if he had been captured in Pakistan, wouldn't Pakistani law apply? What if they refused extradition, and insisted on trying him by Pak law? Or Sharia?

Again, trials are criminal proceedings, not war SOP, and can get very, very complicated, especially in the international arena.

That's also why I was against any trials for Gitmo detainees. They aren't (yet determined to be) "criminals", they are battlefield captures. The only courts I can think of that have ever tried enemy prisoners WHILE THE WAR WAS STILL GOING ON are "kangaroo courts".

Not a good association.

If you think about it, the people in charge of his death probably had a sit down and "trial'ed" him on whether they will try and kill him or not, obviously they go to the conclusion that he must be taken out. A secret trial

He got a fair trial and a swift death sentence. Justice was served as no one in the Twin towers got a trial before they were executed...

reply to post by ka119


Of course he did. Either our system is superior, or it isn't. We don't demonstrate its superiority by abandoning it whenever it is inconvenient. We refute it, worse then any terrorist every could.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Michael Moore is a moron.

Think about this. How many people wanted the Gitmo detainees declared Prisoner's of War? If the Gitmo detainees are POW's, that makes Bin Laden an enemy combatant. No trial required. Simple enough.

Michael Moore is a moron?

Why?

Because you disagree with him?

I doubt that your personal difference of opinion with what he says makes him a moron. You'd do yourself credit by refraining from name calling and just say you disagree with his point of view on this issue.

Originally posted by RustyNailer
He got a fair trial and a swift death sentence. Justice was served as no one in the Twin towers got a trial before they were executed...

He got no trial.

Many if not all the perps of 911 are still breathing.

Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

No. And its not answered from some dumb phony sense of "Americanism"

All the star seeking posters on page one make me want to puke in my soup.

These people who want a trial for a man who is clearly guilty, then turn around and nag like children because the trial cost the tax payers money. (never happy unless you're complaining)

Our society has become way too relaxed on criminals, thats why there's more of them than ever before.

We can be civilized with a barbaric justice system. Fighting fire with fire is the only solution that has ever worked. All your liberalism didn't do a damn thing for WW1 or WW2, it took guts & determination. We didnt give Hitler a trial, did we? No. We invaded his country and went after him because it was what needed to be done.

If you disagree, then all I can say is I hope nobody ever pillages you or your house hold. I hope nobody ever breaks in and rapes you, your spouse, or harms your family in any way. I really do hope for this, because your sense of justice will set them free. And thats pathetic.

The title of this thread made me think, he wasn't proved guilty, hey he may have been a patsy, or just a guy with too much money and a big mouth...used by the ptb.
Starred and flagged , because he may have been innocent.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Because if you are not a "legal" resident in this country, then by definition you are "illegal" and thus already breaking a law, and we don't want criminals with guns. You can be here on a Visa and still buy a gun. I have plenty of friends that are citizens of other countries, and they have concealed weapons permits.

I wasn't asking what laws the US citizen rampaging Canada would fall under, I was asking what moral code. Is it different if he is outside the US? Are Canadians less important than Americans? Apparently, if Iraq is any precident, it is ok to go to Canada, capture a Canadian, and torture or abuse them, refuse them any rights or visits or contact with the outside world, and then either release them back into the wild, or dispose of their bodies. Are Canadians some kind of lesser animal than Americans?

My entire argument is that the Constitution is more than a law. The very existence of the United States is based upon some ideals that our forefathers found to be "self-evident" and "inalienable." In other words, the document is not necessary to have those rights. Those rights exist in nature. A person is born with those rights. As Americans, we believe this to be true, and so where ever we may go, we carry those ideals and morals with us. It does not matter that we are out our country, because we live by a certain morality. It is ludicrous to think that it is ok to refuse those same rights to our captives or criminals.

Another example, the US is currently prosecuting "sex trips" where Americans go out of the country and do things that are somewhat legal in the country they are visiting, and then coming home innocently. We think it is immoral and we are prosecuting those cases.

Ideals and Morality are something a person sticks to no matter where they are. Our politicians and military and contractors and tourists overseas should be living by the same moral code they live by in the States.

19 terrorists, Al Qaeda and OBL violated almost 3,000 American citizens their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because their moral code said Americans should die.

A murderer is defined as someone who takes the life of another through malice aforethought. That makes them criminals. And we were at war with OBL since he declared war on us by the fatwa he issued, so that makes it an act of war.

www.pbs.org...

He declared war on the United States in a London newspaper. So from that moment he issued the fatwa and declared war, we were at a state of war from that moment. 9/11 was a criminal act of war. He issued it, so we brought it to him.

So now this current president has not ended it. Why not? Well the general on their side might be dead, but he has a lot of officers who still want to fight on through the fatwa. For us to leave means we surrender, and what would that mean? It would mean that any time they want, they will continue to declare war on us.

And OBL states in his fatwa over and over again..the suspension of Sharia law for civil law. He very clearly intended on replacing our Constitution with Sharia law, and he published it. So whose moral code is right?

Saddam Hussien got a trial by his own people and was hung, or maybe it was by us, I can't recall. I supposed I could look it up. Anyways, this was a sick dude (Saddam) and we still followed the law with him. Osama put together this mastermind terrorist scheme and was supposedly hunted down 10 years later and shot on site, and immediately thrown into the ocean. Hmmmm, ok.

My answer is yes, he did deserve a trial.

binladen could have easily been taken into custody without killing anyone, and he had just as much right to a trial by jury as any other defendant in the world.

its bush senior and junior, cheany , rumsfeld and rice that doesn't deserve a trial. its the wood chipper for the lot of them

Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

In a word: NO!
In 2 words: Hell NO!
In many words: He had his trial when he bragged about doing it, and the only thing he "deserved" is to be buried inside a dead pig. Perhaps even Michael Moore.

I'm gonna jump in this way late.

As much as it pains me to say...and confuses me to hear it come out of my own brain...Bin Laden absolutely deserved a trial.

I think he's done AND taken credit for some horrible, unforgivable things. If we had straight killed him within 2-3 months (hell, maybe 2-3 YEARS) of 09/11/2001, I would have thought we did the right thing.

But with the amount of time that passed, and the trial and subsequent execution of Hussein that took place while we should have been aggressively hunting Bin Laden, it seems that as emotions hardened...doing things the "right way" was the better course of action.

Don't get me wrong, we should have killed him...in a sentenced execution mandated by more of the world than just the people in charge of the military of the USA.

The whole thing just came off as seeming wrong...and kinda dirty in the way the aftermath was handled.

Originally posted by anumohi
binladen could have easily been taken into custody without killing anyone

Okay, how would you do it? If you can come up with something better than publicly available TTPs, I promise to forward your suggestions to Admiral McRaven.

If Osama was so smart think about what we could have learned from him to prevent sh*t like that from happening again. Or the US military could have done some MK ultra style brainwashing and programming on him... Possible even give him an enhanced(torture) interrorgation him like they did the so called 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.