Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?, page 17
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times


reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 08:31 AM by playswithmachines
reply to post by Versa



You got it in one, it's not so much the morality of a 'shoot to kill' policy (every country has one).
I'ts more that there would be some embarassing questions & evidence that would come with the trial.
IMO yet another whitewash job.
So then he was shot, o.k.it happens.
But no body either?
'burial at sea'?
You smell something?


reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 08:34 AM by Brentnauer
reply to post by ka119



Yes.
Difficult to put a frozen man on trial though.


reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 08:36 AM by playswithmachines
reply to post by steveknows



So you heard him say this, did you?
You speak Arabic?
Did you recognise him as the same man who visited the White house a few years earlier?
Say yes, & i might believe his 'confession' was real.



reply posted on 18-9-2011 @ 06:32 PM by nenothtu
Originally posted by getreadyalready

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.


I believe the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners from the opposing team DURING wartime, whether they are here, there or wherever. For example, the Geneva Conventions dictated business in the German POW camps in WWII rather than local German law being applied to foreign troops captured by the Germans. AFTER the war, in it's aftermath, those prisoners should either be repatriated without prejudice or charge with a crime if applicable and tried. They are and should remain "prisoners" until the war is concluded.


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?


The passage of the "Patriot" Act was the final straw that convinced me that neocons have nothing to do with "conservatives". In my entire life, I have only seen that sort of draconian hogwash emanate from marxists, fascists, and others in the "totalitarian" camp, which are all, by definition, "radicals", far from "conservative". Doesn't matter which end of the "political spectrum" they sit at - radicals are radicals, and totalitarians are totalitarians. It makes no difference to me at all whether they are "marxist" totalitarians or "fascist" totalitarians - they're all the same (totalitarian) to me.

As an aside, I am the proud owner of a mild-mannered shotgun which has been defined and labeled to be a "WMD" in certain areas. A mere shotgun, not even one of those eeevil black assault rifles that can shoot thousands of rounds without a reload and have barrel shrouds - you know, "that thing that flips up on your shoulder", as defined by a certain well know left leaning congresswoman...

So then, when they invade me, you heard it first here - the WMDs are in the closet with a trigger-lock on them!
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Zombie Apocalypse is Real! And it\'s Here Now!
  Posted 17 days ago with 87 member flags
While Americans keep arguing about Trayvon-Zimmerman
  Posted 11 days ago with 79 member flags
Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
This is scary!
  Posted 17 days ago with 57 member flags