posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by ka119
Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?
Obviously I agree with the OPs edit, the question answers itself. How on earth can we justify not giving him a trial. Regardless of the fact they
have no hard evidence linking him to 911, they apparently can link him to the USS Cole bombing, and he would surely never see a day of freedom (or
possibly life) again anyways. He's already guilty, that's a given.
But what kind of a farce is it for us to consider ourselves living in lands of justice, and under what moral authority can we go about the globe
forcing our laws and ways on people, while not even following them ourselves?
It's a sham. If they indeed did kill him in that raid, which is still debatable, it was more to ensure no trial would happen than an act of revenge,
because regardless of what you believe about OBL and 911, what that man would have said in court would be extremely dangerous.
Beyond that, as the details morphed and changed into the current version of events in that raid, OBL was unarmed and not resisting because he wasn't
even given a chance to.
I'm not saying the seal was wrong to double or triple tap him, but those who made the decision and gave that order were. If OBL was behind 911 and
is the leader of a magical globe swarming terrorist network with agents behind every curtain, we've completely squandered the opportunity to exploit
that intelligence. The US proved long ago it's not above torture, and it's not above shipping prisoners off to other countries to be
"interrogated". There is no excuse.
If you don't believe in justice for a criminal, you don't believe in justice for anyone.