It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Versa
yes he deserved a Trial.

As much as anything we all deserved to see the evidence against him rather than just being told 'he's guilty', no trial= no need to produce evidence.

What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty? Im not saying he was innocent BUT in the eyes of the law he was until it was proven in a court that he was guilty.
edit on 15/9/11 by Versa because: (no reason given)


Whatt happened to innocent til proven guilty u ask? The New World Order is what happened.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
How could he get a trial when hes been dead for 10 years



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Did I mention the word "Terrorism"?

If as you say it was an act of war then he was an active combatant and by the rules of war was considered a legitimate target and fair game and "Assassination" is acceptable. During WWII the US carried out a mid-air interception Assassination of a Japanese General by intercepting his transport plane in the South Pacific thanks to the cracking of their code.

Shortly there after the war didn't go all that well for the Japanese once their main General was out of the picture.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I think we're discussing parallel arguments.

From the OP, I stated unequivocally that Osama did deserve a trial for the supposed "crimes" of 9/11. I followed that sentiment up from your post about "whose laws" by stating there was clear jurisdiction in the US and in NY.

BUT, in your later question about the attacks against military installations, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to assassinate a military or political leader in times of war, or to strike out, hunt, and kill an attacker of a military unit or installation.

So, I have no problem with the Seal Team tracking and killing Osama for the USS Cole or the Embassy attacks (although I do think it should have been done many years ago), but I do have a problem with killing him for the 9/11 attacks.

In general, I was attempting to make a broader statement that I do not believe in the term "terrorism" or in the differing set of rules for all of these supposed terrorists.

My opinion may be colored, because I believe Osama was connected with the USS Cole, and the Embassy attacks, because he opposed our presence in those areas and he wanted to see us leave. I do not believe he was affiliated with the 9/11 attacks, because he condemned the attacks, and it was not his style to attack our homeland, and it was not conducive to his goal of removing us from their holy lands. 9/11 brought more troops to his area, and he knew that would happen, and therefore he would not have authorized the attack inside the US. So, with that in mind, perhaps I cannot be objective on the issue.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but what the heck. All I know about Osama bin Laden I learned from the Mainstream Media. That being said, in the court of public opinion, that guy was a Hitler and a Stalin.

That being said, Ms. Hasselback's comment is a bit scary - and while I find flaws in our legal system, to state that because of what happened to Casey Anthony is excuse to throw the baby (Habeus Corpus/Judicial system) out with the bath water (Public anger/opinion over media stories).

Am I the only one to see a very disgusting precedent being set? One where, independent of real facts, a slurry of soundbytes, edited quotes, jazzy graphics and pure, unadulterated repetition ad nauseum is enough to inform society's notion of a person's guilt or innocence. Last time I checked, it said jury of your peers - not everyone and their grand mamma who watch cable news.

EDIT: Also, when Michael Moore said the war is over (responding to Ms. Hasselback's comment about what differentiates this from the Nurnberg Trials), he had a point. The actual "war" is over, at this point there is only occupation. I don't think that that point was accurately made, either because he didn't make it to defend his statement, or FOX decided not to air that justification (supposing he did make it - by the way, I saw this on FOX).

Another thing, what is the big deal of having his trial in New York? What changes? A terror alert? Are you kidding me? New York is already treated as though every person who prays towards Mecca is plotting some destruction of the place...so what changes when and if a terrorist goes on trial there? Isn't that, in effect, bowing to the terrorists? I thought America didn't bow to the terrorists?
edit on 16-9-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Yes he did... he deserved a Trail and a damn good lawyer...

Would of been nice to hear him say he was Set up to be this Leader of a terrorist organization .. That now is the Us's Ally.........



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
BUT, in your later question about the attacks against military installations, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to assassinate a military or political leader in times of war, or to strike out, hunt, and kill an attacker of a military unit or installation.


Fair enough


So, I have no problem with the Seal Team tracking and killing Osama for the USS Cole or the Embassy attacks (although I do think it should have been done many years ago), but I do have a problem with killing him for the 9/11 attacks.



But...

The FBI's issued WANTED Dead or Alive Warrant still stood. If as some believe he was dead already then "Put on ice" then all of this is moot. But on the other hand if he was as squirmy and as hard to find as he obviously was. Then the serving of the warrant simply took longer than would be expected. 9/11 came and went but the warrant still stood for the "Acts of War" [The USS Cole and Embassy bombing] etc that he never denied and even bragged about.
edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Let's take the scenario one step further. If everything is a fabricated sham then why even bother keeping the body on ice all those years in the first place? Then when the time came to "Kill" him they just dumped the body at sea with no photos being released and obviously no trial.

What would be the point of keeping him on ice?


A fair question.

My hypothesis is that they wanted to wait a little bit longer, and have this happen prior to the election of 2012 (re-elect the guy who got Bin Laden!), but something may have come up that necessitated moving up the timeframe.

You just have to admit, the whole thing stinks to high heaven...and there is definitely something more than fishy with the official story and reasoning given.


The FBI's issued WANTED Dead or Alive Warrant still stood. If as some believe he was dead already then "Put on ice" then all of this moot. But on the other hand if he was as squirmy and as hard to find as he obviously was. Then the serving of the warrant simply took longer than would be expected. 9/11 came and went but the warrant still stood for the "Acts of War" [The USS Cole and Embassy bombing] etc that he never denied and even bragged about.


An interesting argument, but the FBI doesn't have international jurisdiction or any voice in international law, and Bin Laden was a foreign national.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


No I don't think he did but I think it was a very stupid move to kill him. They could have taken a lot of information from him and maybe stopped any plans for the future from the men that worked along side him.

Information is key and they just destroy a huge portion of it.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ka119
 


Absolutely.

We went to war on moral grounds, and therefore we should have taken the higher moral ground at every juncture. Battlefield deaths are one thing, but captured people deserve every right our Constitution affords citizens. After all our Declaration of Independence states, "we hold these rights to be self-evident....inalienable" etc., etc.

We cannot "liberate" a country, and then not treat the people the same way their own dictator was treating them. We have to take the highest possible moral ground at every juncture.

And this sentiment is coming from a Ron Paul / Tea Party / Ultra-Conservative / Registered Republican.


But Osama bin Laden was not a citizen,therefore not entitled to rights as a citizen. But the United Nations should have done something about him, and they did not. I think he should have had a trial, but where? Maybe in Paris or London. If they let him go, then they would have to found protection for him as well. He was screwed no matter where he went.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
A fair question.

My hypothesis is that they wanted to wait a little bit longer, and have this happen prior to the election of 2012 (re-elect the guy who got Bin Laden!), but something may have come up that necessitated moving up the timeframe.



I'm curious...

Bush could not run for reelection and if Obama was going to use the killing for "Reelection" why not wait till a better time much closer to the election [When it would have full impact] I've heard this scenario before but not hear mention when and where he was killed and then put on ice. Or did they always have him and when he died from his "Supposed" Kidney problem they just kept the body?

How does that angle work in this?
edit on 16-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



But Osama bin Laden was not a citizen,therefore not entitled to rights as a citizen.


That is the part that really bugs me about that side of this whole argument. Why is he not entitled to rights that we hold to be "self-evident" and "inalienable?" I understand that we don't technically have to extend those rights, but since our nation is founded upon those principles, and the wars are fought to bring these inalienable human rights to all people, then how can we say he is not entitled to them?

If he is not entitled to our inalienable rights, then our nation has no moral basis to ever condemn the human rights violations of other leaders, and we have no basis to ever "liberate" anyone ever again.

Either all people are entitled to them or not. We can't fight it both ways. We can't condemn and kill Saddam, and then say human rights are only for US Citizens?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Do the last 4 presidents of the United States deserve a trial?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
i may get grilled... but does the ending of Fahrenheit 451 ring a bell for anybody? i mean, truth be told i have trouble believing they dumped his body in the ocean because that brings closure only to the closed mind.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
If you believe in "justice for all" and "equality before the law", then yes, he should have been put on trial... it's one of the things that allegedly separates us 'civilized' countries from the 'evil' ones, after all.

However, if you are a spineless hypocrite, that believes in law and justice only when it is suitable, or only behave in a lawful way if it fits your agenda, while at the same time parading your 'law' around and pointing fingers at others, even though you aren't any better than any savages, like the US does, then an assassination is in order. Of course you will lose any credibility in the process, but in this case that day has come and gone long ago anyway.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom1701
Osama bin "idiot" got what he deserved --- TWO IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD...

CASE CLOSED


AND YET ANOTHER REASON WHY ATS IS DEAD.


Well.. Actually there was one shot to the chest and one through the left eye socket.

Looks like ATS lives again.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
If the man was real, then yes. The politics go around the globe promoting democracy and fair justice, but this event shows otherwise.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by belsoember
Do the last 4 presidents of the United States deserve a trial?


YES IMO

Bush Sr: For being Stupid about the then struggling economy & losing the election to Clinton.

Clinton: For being Stupid and allowed the Chinese to steal Missile technology and did nothing.

Bush Jr: For being Stupid.

Obama: Well, I'll let his present fumbling about speak for itself.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 

It has been done and put on u-tube. Looks like you forgot.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Somebody would have noticed him being dead and all.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join