Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by bftroop
Every human has the right to face their accuser and defend themselves as they are accused. No matter the magnitude of the crime. This is the American way. The constitutional way.

The Constitution is not operative on the battlefield. "It has seemed reasonably clear that the Constitution does not follow advancing troops into conquered territory. Persons in such territory have been held entirely beyond the reach of constitutional limitations and subject to the laws of war as interpreted and applied by Congress and the President" (p. 343).

Guilt without proof, is justice without law.

Which is why the Department of Justice doesn't go around killing people. But the CIA and the Department of Defense do, and they do have laws authorizing them to do that.

Our Country is built on a just and fair foundation according to our constitutional and moral convictions as keepers of liberty.

One can make a moral argument, or a practical argument, but the legal argument is settled. Under international law, states may act in self defense and target combatants, provided the means of attack are proportional and minimize collateral damage. Under municipal law, the President "is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" (PL 107-40). Article II and the National Security Act give him the tools to apply that force.

The President is authorized by who?

An International law?

So there is some international law that can tell our President what he can and cannot do?
What if he breaks that law?

Does the constitution protect him?

So what your sayin then is that our constitution means nothing, Because some international law trumps it?
If the Gov says your a terrorist than they have the right to kill you and ask questions later? Without proof and without reason?

So your saying that the U.S. is allowed because of international law to go anywhere in the world and kill anyone because we say they are a terrorist?

With as much force as we need to get the terrorist?

So basically your saying that because of Some international law the U.S. is legally allowed to attack anyone or any country based on the idea that they could be a threat to the U.S. . I mean you could be a threat, I could be a threat, the U.S. people as a whole can be a threat. I'm truly glad that the constitution protects us from the the Gov attacking it's own people, or does that international law mean all countries?

Whew glad it's not some other country that has the right to do that. Because we would all be dead.

Originally posted by bftroop
The President is authorized by who?

An International law?

So there is some international law that can tell our President what he can and cannot do?

"Municipal law" is the technical term for domestic law. In this case, the "who" is the 98 senators and 420 representatives who passed PL 107-40.

What if he breaks that law?

Does the constitution protect him?

If the House believes that the President has broken the law, they can impeach him. That is the Constitutional process. Or anyone with standing can sue the government and try to get an injunction or collect damages.

So what your sayin then is that our constitution means nothing, Because some international law trumps it?

Corrected you on municipal law above. See Article VI for the status of treaties under the Constitution.

If the Gov says your a terrorist than they have the right to kill you and ask questions later? Without proof and without reason?

I happen to be in the United States at the moment, so I'm protected by the Constitution. But the Constitution does not apply in other countries. Were I outside the US, and were I the subject of the Authorization Resolution, the President could use "appropriate force" against me. "Appropriate" implies reason, so no, he couldn't do it without reason. But he could do it.

So your saying that the U.S. is allowed because of international law to go anywhere in the world and kill anyone because we say they are a terrorist?

Putting the matter of municipal law aside for a moment and looking at only international law, the answer is generally yes, provided that it's a response to an attack. States have an inherent right to self-defense.

With as much force as we need to get the terrorist?

The use of force must be proportional to the target and minimize collateral damage. We couldn't drop a nuclear bomb on Abottobad, but a small missile probably would have been acceptable, and a raid was certainly acceptable.

So basically your saying that because of Some international law the U.S. is legally allowed to attack anyone or any country based on the idea that they could be a threat to the U.S.

Not on the idea that they could be a threat, but on the fact that an attack has already occurred. Preemptive defense is a stickier situation, but it doesn't apply here.

. I mean you could be a threat, I could be a threat, the U.S. people as a whole can be a threat. I'm truly glad that the constitution protects us from the the Gov attacking it's own people, or does that international law mean all countries?

The inherent right to self-defense is in the UN Charter, so it's safe to say it applies to all countries.

Whew glad it's not some other country that has the right to do that. Because we would all be dead.

There are other countries that want us all to be dead. Fortunately, our country has an inherent right of self-defense, and it's not afraid to use it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

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?

Whose moral law is right? Well our's is of course.

Maybe we have to look at the bigger picture. If our intention is to rule over these countries and consume their natural resources, then I am perfectly fine with using overwhelming force and enjoying the spoils of war. None of this gray area junk that gets our troops killed while trying to protect the enemy though. If we want to rule over these countries, then we need to do so by force, not flip-flopping on diplomacies.

On the other hand, if our intention is to enlighten and liberate these countries and spread our brand of freedom and democracy, then we have to take the high moral road at every turn, no matter the cost, and we must lead by example and live and die by our morals even if it hampers the military effort.

In my opinion there is no in-between. If we follow the current protocol, and we try to have it both ways, we only sacrifice US lives, and create new generations of enemies that grow up wanting to avenge the wrongs we have sporadically caused. We are digging ourselves in deeper, and creating a prolonged war with an increasingly hardening enemy.

Either we WIN the dam war, or we ride our morals at all costs, but we can't continue to not win, and also not stick to our morals.

I don't think half the world believes our moral code is right. Just because we do does not make them believe it. Even most people in England and Europe don't think we have a good moral code. We live in a world of moral relativism anyway so who is to say who has the better moral code anyway? We find it abhorrent to murder innocent girls and women because they were raped or did not wear a burqua. There are those who do believe it is right to kill them. When you have a people who live by the dogma of an eye for an eye, then they will continually poke at the eyes of everyone. But Jesus said "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword". There are millions of people right at this moment willing to die by the sword if it means they kill others doing it. This war, as some put it, may be a war of revenge. But the revenge is against the very people who are willing to die for it.

OBL was not willing to die for it. He said in his fatwa that he was willing to give his life on the glorious battlefield. He did not and neither did Saddam Hussein. But until we prove to them that peace comes by laying down the sword, we will have to continue to wield it. They want revenge for the Crusades. They want revenge for this thing or that thing, and always bring the Crusades up as basis of argument. What they do not admit is the thousand and half years of invasion of countries forcing those nations to become Islamic. They would have had France if they were not beaten. Why were they in France anyway? To kill them or force them to become Islamic. Do they talk about that? No. Theirs is a moral code based on revenge, that is what they understand.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by bftroop

There are other countries that want us all to be dead. Fortunately, our country has an inherent right of self-defense, and it's not afraid to use it.

Exactly right.

reply to post by WarminIndy


No joke, I want you to know in your life time you will watch your homes burn, your people die, and your government leave you to fend for yourself. This isn't a threat, just remember. In your life time, fortunately you won't be able to watch this one behind your censored media. ha ha. Good luck to you.

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

No joke, I want you to know in your life time you will watch your homes burn, your people die, and your government leave you to fend for yourself. This isn't a threat, just remember. In your life time, fortunately you won't be able to watch this one behind your censored media. ha ha. Good luck to you.

Actually my home did burn. Thanks for reminding me.

And our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. We will never be without a government. If the Federal government collapses, we still have 50 states with their own constitutions and governors. So if the federal government does collapse, we will still have government.

Each of our states entered into the Union through provisional contracts with the United States. Each state's constitutions say that for whatever reason, they can secede. People go back to the Civil War, that was a war of secession of the southern states that created its own form of Federal government called the Confederacy that was shaped like the US Federal government.It had its own Confederate Constitution. You also have to realize that after the states seceded, the first shots fired were from the Confederates on a US army installation, so they invoked war and that war was fought both in the United States and the Confederacy, as they were two separate nations at this point. Like it or not, the Confederacy eventually surrendered.

Some call it the War of Northern Aggression and some call it the War of Southern Secession. But the Confederacy declared war on the United States. At that point in time they were indeed two different countries.

So if the Federal government collapses, we will still have government.

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)

Geez..The speech Clinton gave at 2:20, was copied by George W. years later, almost to the word. Must be a terror template the president's speech writers have, and did not realize they had regurgitated one.

reply to post by WarminIndy


But you asked me, not the other half of the world. I live my life and I make my decisions by my moral code which very closely resembles the moral code of our founding fathers, with a few modernizations.

I don't care what other people believe, because I am only responsible for my own actions. My decisions, and my actions will reflect my own moral code. I will not go into someone else's land and and change my own morality to match theirs. The only moral code that matters to me is my own.

By your logic, it should be fine for our troops to administer sharia law while in a Muslim land, and participate in human trafficking while in eastern europe/asia, and have sex with little pre-teens while in thailand and malaysia. Of course we do not live by that type of moral code. We decide what is right for ourselves, and we live by our own moral code no matter where we are.

Our military represents our nation, and our set of morality, and our laws, and therefore that is the code we live by. It does not change, just because we are in a foreign land, and we do not treat our enemies the way they might treat us, we treat them the way we believe a human being should be treated.

We (all Americans including military and politicians) should take the moral high road at every opportunity and serve as an example and not care who disagrees with it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

But you asked me, not the other half of the world. I live my life and I make my decisions by my moral code which very closely resembles the moral code of our founding fathers, with a few modernizations.

I don't care what other people believe, because I am only responsible for my own actions. My decisions, and my actions will reflect my own moral code. I will not go into someone else's land and and change my own morality to match theirs. The only moral code that matters to me is my own.

By your logic, it should be fine for our troops to administer sharia law while in a Muslim land, and participate in human trafficking while in eastern europe/asia, and have sex with little pre-teens while in thailand and malaysia. Of course we do not live by that type of moral code. We decide what is right for ourselves, and we live by our own moral code no matter where we are.

Our military represents our nation, and our set of morality, and our laws, and therefore that is the code we live by. It does not change, just because we are in a foreign land, and we do not treat our enemies the way they might treat us, we treat them the way we believe a human being should be treated.

We (all Americans including military and politicians) should take the moral high road at every opportunity and serve as an example and not care who disagrees with it.

I am not advocating enforcing our moral code on anyone else. Should we have maintained the Isolationist Policy and not gone to war with Germany? What do you do with people like this man...

www.youtube.com...

He in an American. He did it on a city street in New York AMERICA

reply to post by sith9157


Oh...

If you liked that, You're gonna love this...

The Inconvenient Truth

This one gets interesting around 3:05



This one gets interesting around 0:53

reply to post by WarminIndy


Our soldiers fight and die to protect that man's rights to walk on our flag. The law should protect his right to do so. (But if some patriotic individuals want to show him the difference between "legal rights" and "bad manners meet natural consequences" then I am all for that.

The law should leave him alone, the other folks on the street should beat him down!! Then the law should step in to protect his legal rights, and any dummies still standing around should be arrested.

I have not mentioned asserting our morals on others in any way. I am only talking about our own actions, such as granting constitutional rights to the prisoners in Gitmo, and extending a trial to Osama. I am entirely against asserting our morals on others, we don't have to tell the Taliban to give trials and attorneys to their people, but if we capture one of their people, we should give them the attorney and the trial.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree with most of what you have said - but have to draw the line at forcing American Constitutional protections on foreign soldiers. Constitutional protections apply to American citizens and visiting foreigners when on our own soil - not foreign soldiers during wartime. International Law as codified in the Geneva Conventions has jurisdiction over that situation. To force our laws and Constitution on them would be and is no different than them forcing their laws on our captured soldiers.

THAT has resulted in US soldiers being beheaded.

This is why neither US law nor Sharia apply to BOTH sides on the battlefield, and in POW camps. Our laws and morals bind our side (via the chain of command and the UCMJ), their laws and morality bind theirs, and the Geneva Conventions impartially mediate between the two. The sticky part of the problem comes in when we realize that the opposition are NOT signatories of the Geneva Conventions, and so are not bound by them, nor do they deserve their protections (having rejected them). We, as a courtesy, extend international law to cover them, but they do not reciprocate. It would be an overstepping of our boundaries to extend US law to cover the rest of the world, just as it would be to extend German law, Brazilian law, Sharia, or any other localized law to the rest of the world.

That was the reason the Geneva Accords were negotiated to begin with.

reply to post by nenothtu


I agree with, and I made that distinction early on in this thread.

Battlefields, attacks against military, and declared wars against foreign states are different than criminal actions.

The attacks against the WTC were considered crimes. The attacks against the USS Cole, Embassies, and Barracks should be considered acts of war.

Enemies captured during a battle should be harshly interrogated (possibly even tortured) to get real-time life-saving information, but a few days, weeks, months later, 5000 miles away in Gitmo, there is no call for anything except absolutely humane treatment either by the Geneva Convention, or the Constitution of the US.

At this point, the US is not even giving Constitutional rights to its own citizens, if they are accused of anything that falls under the Patriot Acts, and the Patriot Acts are written so that just about anything falls under them. A can of tear gas, or a flash grenade are now considered WMD's?

Almost all wars have been about selling weapons and arms to both sides. Figure out who's doing that and you will get a clearer picture of who carried out 9/11. OBL was just another puppet in the deception game to justify profits through wars.

Putting OBL on trial would have been like putting George Bush on trial for 9/11. You really think any info would have come of it? NOT

Originally posted by WarminIndy
Each of our states entered into the Union through provisional contracts with the United States. Each state's constitutions say that for whatever reason, they can secede.

This seems contrary to the principle that the Constitution formed a "more perfect union" than the already "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. This principle became law (if it was not already) in Texas v. White, 1869, so any state entering the union after that date cannot possibly claim to have an escape clause.

Some call it the War of Northern Aggression and some call it the War of Southern Secession.

It was never called the War of Northern Aggression until well into the 20th century. That name has no historical validity, in my opinion. I believe it was coined as propaganda during the civil rights era, to paint civil rights activists as "northern aggressors."

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Our soldiers fight and die to protect that man's rights to walk on our flag. The law should protect his right to do so. (But if some patriotic individuals want to show him the difference between "legal rights" and "bad manners meet natural consequences" then I am all for that.

The law should leave him alone, the other folks on the street should beat him down!! Then the law should step in to protect his legal rights, and any dummies still standing around should be arrested.

I have not mentioned asserting our morals on others in any way. I am only talking about our own actions, such as granting constitutional rights to the prisoners in Gitmo, and extending a trial to Osama. I am entirely against asserting our morals on others, we don't have to tell the Taliban to give trials and attorneys to their people, but if we capture one of their people, we should give them the attorney and the trial.

What oath do soldiers take when joining the military? What oath does every elected official take when going into any office? Don't they take the oath to protect and defend the United States and the Constitution? If the Constitution is defended by force, then we should not prevent it. What about the soldiers who are like this man and do not follow their oath and shoot their fellow soldiers? This man in the video certainly had the freedom of speech to do what he did, but we must make the distinction between free speech and loyalist speeches to other governments. Was what he doing a matter of free speech?

He was not exercising free speech, what he was doing was condoning the actions of an enemy government by naming himself loyal to it. And while we are on free speech, we have regulations in the film industry that defines what is porn and what is child abuse. Some filmmakers attempt to get around those regulations by saying it is free speech. The man said he was loyal to them, not us. That is not free speech.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by WarminIndy
Each of our states entered into the Union through provisional contracts with the United States. Each state's constitutions say that for whatever reason, they can secede.

This seems contrary to the principle that the Constitution formed a "more perfect union" than the already "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. This principle became law (if it was not already) in Texas v. White, 1869, so any state entering the union after that date cannot possibly claim to have an escape clause.

Some call it the War of Northern Aggression and some call it the War of Southern Secession.

It was never called the War of Northern Aggression until well into the 20th century. That name has no historical validity, in my opinion. I believe it was coined as propaganda during the civil rights era, to paint civil rights activists as "northern aggressors."

I did not give a time frame when it was called that, only that some people do call it that.

And the "more perfect union" is in the Preamble. Most southern states were not even states when it was drafted.

reply to post by WarminIndy


True.

I suppose in that case, he still has the right to say it, and he has voluntarily renounced this government, and since he doesn't have a green card, he has made himself an illegal immigrant, and should be deported.

I believe anyone should be able to say whatever they want, but I also believe everyone should accept the natural consequences that follow. Someone can come up and call my wife a ho, but that same somebody can also take a $1500 ambulance ride and drink their meals through a straw for a few weeks.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by WarminIndy


Someone can come up and call my wife a ho, but that same somebody can also take a $1500 ambulance ride and drink their meals through a straw for a few weeks.

Are you using your free speech? LOL that was a good statement. That made me laugh.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I did not give a time frame when it was called that, only that some people do call it that.

Just providing context. You said "some call it" without identifying who those some are. They are historical revisionists who seek to obscure the nature of the Civil War in order to flatter neo-Confederates' egos. Their opinions can, and should, be ignored.

And the "more perfect union" is in the Preamble. Most southern states were not even states when it was drafted.

Which means they had no excuse for thinking they could secede. Unless they didn't read the Constitution before signing on. I guess that's possible. I almost never read EULAs, and a EULA is kind of like the Constitution.