Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

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 to post by ka119


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

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.

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!

Originally posted by WarminIndy

I think you are making a satire of changing names as well.

I have no Idea what you even mean....how am I making a satire at changing names by pointing out my belief that an article is doing the same thing.

That's as if I said to an actor "I think your portrayal of Hamlet lacked depth" and the actor got angry and said back to me " OH Yeah...well I think that YOUR portrayal of Hamlet lacks depth!!!"........It just wouldn't make any sense since I'm not an actor. I didn't make any satire about changing names, I only commented with my belief that another site did in fact do that.....

edit on 19-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: trying to fix quote box

edit on 19-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: ARGHHH The quote box is screwing up....I dont know why...eh forget it...