Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 

If we had captured him? Yeah.

Can't execute a man without a trial. That said, it would be impossible for him to have a fair trial.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SemperGumby
 


yeah, i'm totally serious. binladen isn't real. never was



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching411
Quit it with your bleeding hearts and the sympathy for monsters. He did not deserve a trial. The people killed in the twin towers, the pentagon, and the people who sacrificed their lives to save the destruction of even more, deserve justice and that does not include a platform for a raving lunatic to voice how his belief make his actions just. Remember our soldiers who do not ask to be overseas putting their lives in danger. Are you trying to say that Americans are not worthy of justice? Are you really willing to sit back and say "hit me again"? Where is your courage, your outrage and your dignity?
edit on 15-9-2011 by rudigerfoodiger because:

maybe september eleventh was justice, ever consider that? look, the people in the pentagon were not innocent. it was the death star. as for the wtc, those people weren't innocent either, they were collateral damage. is that hurtful? because thats how we treat our victims all over the world, like they are collateral damage. now grow up. we can't seperate sept 11 from the ten years of war we waged in its name. we are the ultimate bad guys of nine eleven. our people are not more important than anyone else in the world.
edit on 15-9-2011 by rudigerfoodiger because: forgot to include my reply to the quote.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Nazis were enemy combatants, were they not?

They got trials.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


Everybody deserves a fair trail....

For all you know there are circumstances that would change the whole situation....it would not be the first time.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
no. I am normally a bleeding heart liberal, but it was important for the country and for our enemies to see that the US can still reach out and touch you if you attack us

another point is what did saddam husseins trial accomplish ? total railroad job.

another way to look at it is there was really no reason to give him a bully pulpit and drag the victims families through the memories

legally, would he have to face 3,000 trials ?

it's just messy

he got what he deserved



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
dbl post weird
edit on 15-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Nazis were enemy combatants, were they not?

They got trials.


they also had a formal military and a recognized soverign government. if you are going to skulk in the shadows, live outside the law, ignore all wartime conventions and have other people commit suicide to advance your political agenda, all you deserve is 2 taps in the head in the end



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The BIGGEST portion of our FREEDOM in america which 'supposedly' makes us different then all the other countries is

Innocent until PROVEN guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt
trial is required to attain that proof


so here we have a case where 100's of thousands of people maybe even million, had reasonable doubt that he would be guilty, no warrant was ever issued, and america went OVER SEAS and murdered him


ya id say thats a big deal, after all he was innocent....until proven guilty, and it wasnt proven, so he was by default....innocent... except, clearly, your government doesnt WANT to abide by the innocent until proven guilty rule of our law,

they'd rather stick with the form of law we ESCAPED when we came to america, which was
guilty until proven innocent,

back then trials were held only to prove your innocence, if u couldnt do it then u were assumed guilty,

hence why america was 'supposedly' more free

imo this act was them spitting in your face over that freedom or lack thereof

edit on 9/15/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
no. I am normally a bleeding heart liberal, but it was important for the country and for our enemies to see that the US can still reach out and touch you if you attack us
just takes us ten years.


another way to look at it is there was really no reason to give him a bully pulpit and drag the victims families through the memories
what then, is the point of any trial?



legally, would he have to face 3,000 trials ?

it's just messy
1 trial, 3000 counts of murder.


he got what he deserved
Assuming he was guilty, of course. That's what a trial is for.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Just to say there is no high ground if we all choose to fight in the sewer.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by eNumbra
Nazis were enemy combatants, were they not?

They got trials.


they also had a formal military and a recognized soverign government. if you are going to skulk in the shadows, live outside the law, ignore all wartime conventions and have other people commit suicide to advance your political agenda, all you deserve is 2 taps in the head in the end
I'm not in complete disagreement with the sentiment; but that post was of course for those screaming about how his enemy combatant status precludes trial. While the best medicine for any sociopath is the same: I believe what makes us American, what gives us any moral high-ground is the basis for our justice system. We threw that out the window here.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


You've said pretty much everything that I was thinking, hence the star for saving me from having to type it all


On a more serious note one thing I have to add was the way the BBC news report stated Bin Laden's involvement with the attacks:
"Bin Laden, aged 54, was the founder and leader of al-Qaeda. He is believed to have ordered the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, as well as a number of other deadly bombings."
According to the precedent set by your leader(s) it's perfectly fine to shoot your neighbour in the head if you believe (s)he is involved with terrorist activities which makes me wonder how many Americans have been pretending they're really from for the past 5 months or so.
Belief being exactly the same as judgement, conviction & execution is disturbing enough as a mere concept, the fact that it's been put into practice could very well be, as previously stated, the start of a new dark age...
edit on 15/9/2011 by Microwaved because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by eNumbra
Nazis were enemy combatants, were they not?

They got trials.


they also had a formal military and a recognized soverign government. if you are going to skulk in the shadows, live outside the law, ignore all wartime conventions and have other people commit suicide to advance your political agenda, all you deserve is 2 taps in the head in the end
I'm not in complete disagreement with the sentiment; but that post was of course for those screaming about how his enemy combatant status precludes trial. While the best medicine for any sociopath is the same: I believe what makes us American, what gives us any moral high-ground is the basis for our justice system. We threw that out the window here.


I respectfully disagree. The basis for our justice system is an idea as old as the vikings, and shared by many nations. I would think the overwhelming global response to the UBL raid would essentially be, "took ya long enough"

I think most of the vocal critics of the raid and killing are the ones who make a living doing it



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

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.


He's (was) a person politicians / Govt alleged was guilty.. that's it. All the evidence against him has yet to vigorously challenged and deemed to be credible & relevant by a judge.

Summarily executing / kidnapping / holding people without trials was Nazi in 1930s Germany.. it's just as Nazi today... not a surprise were 1930s Germans who looked the other way when der fath, er..homeland committed heinous atrocities. Like many 2011 Americans.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching411
Quit it with your bleeding hearts and the sympathy for monsters. He did not deserve a trial. The people killed in the twin towers, the pentagon, and the people who sacrificed their lives to save the destruction of even more, deserve justice and that does not include a platform for a raving lunatic to voice how his belief make his actions just. Remember our soldiers who do not ask to be overseas putting their lives in danger. Are you trying to say that Americans are not worthy of justice? Are you really willing to sit back and say "hit me again"? Where is your courage, your outrage and your dignity?


The only problem with your argument is that he was never proven guilty.. it's an assumption he was. Govt evidence has yet to be shown credible & relevant in a fair open process.

Besides.. what did he really do? he personally knocked down 3 building with 2 airplanes all by himself? yelling "pull it" was he?..lol He supposedly planned 9/11, right?.. actually he didn't, the US military did with Operation Northwoods".. at best he copied a US govt plan.

He wasn't anywhere near US soil on 9/11 or even indicted for 9/11.. so technically he wasn't even wanted..lol



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Even if he were given a trial, he still would have been killed. The only difference is that his execution would have been public.

While he did deserve a trial under international law, it would have been impossible for him to get a fair trial in any NATO country. He was too well known. His organization has been blamed for bombings in several countries around the world.

A trial would have been a waste of time. A show for the public. Even if he flat out denied every allegation against him, it would still end in his death. And probably a youtube video of him swinging from a rope, just like Saddam.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by brindle
I think when they eventually catch him,give him a trial to prove he did it .


They aleady did catch him and shoot him dead.
You statement sounds like you did not know this.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by allenidaho
Even if he were given a trial, he still would have been killed. The only difference is that his execution would have been public.

...
And probably a youtube video of him swinging from a rope, just like Saddam.


Except for the fact that we would of tried him and he wouldn't be hung, or publicly executed. We didn't try Saddam, Iraqi judges did.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
This idea that we shouldn't try the terrorists in New York, because the terrorist attack happened in...New York, is completely ridiculous. So the next time someone robs a bank, I'm going to say it is outrageous to have a trial in that city, no, that state. I mean seriously, what the heck is this?





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join