If in place of Obama was Ron Paul,would have been a fair trial against Bin Laden?

History had been different?In the whole world.There was a different perception of foreign policy and wars?
I think it would have been different perception of justice and democracy.No matter how big is a criminal, justice through a process in the whole world is an act of courage.

Would have been too great a risk?What Osama Bin Laden had to say and should not we hear!
How can we find truth!

What would have been the credibility level now for Obama?

Why presidents make mistakes?

Bin Laden did NOT have U.S. citizenship, why would he be afforded a trial?

Originally posted by jheated5
Bin Laden did NOT have U.S. citizenship, why would he be afforded a trial?

Because the crime was committed on US territory!!

OKay, this is assuming the ben laden thing was real. I think Ron Paul may have given him a trail to give America a better image. No one would say anything bad if he were to do what obama did but i think it would of shown more class to bring him to trail. To show that we're above all this hit and kill #. And i mean honestly, theres no way laden would of gotten acquitted so i think it would of been a classy move to bring him to trail. Start earning our country's name back.

Originally posted by jheated5
Bin Laden did NOT have U.S. citizenship, why would he be afforded a trial?

So what, are you saying Americans are superior to everyone else?

reply to post by biggmoneyme

classy move to bring him to trail

Maybe he could speak the truth,if trial,so they k..ll him fast.

If you guys don't even know how the laws work in the U.S. it isn't not worth coming onto this stupid thread to debate them with you.. Have a nice day..

Originally posted by jheated5
If you guys don't even know how the laws work in the U.S. it isn't not worth coming onto this stupid thread to debate them with you.. Have a nice day..

TextOn December 15, 1989, Noriega publicly declared that a state of war existed between Panama and the United States. Within days of this announcement by Noriega, President George Bush directed United States armed forces into combat in Panama for the stated purposes of "safeguard[ing] American lives, restor[ing] democracy, preserv[ing] the Panama Canal treaties, and seiz[ing] Noriega to face federal drug charges in the United States." United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506, 1511 (S.D.Fla. 1990). The ensuing military conflagration resulted in significant casualties and property loss among Panamanian civilians.2 Noriega lost his effective control over Panama during this armed conflict, and he surrendered to United States military officials on January 3, 1990. Noriega then was brought to Miami to face the pending federal charges. Following extensive pre-trial proceedings and a lengthy trial, a jury found Noriega guilty of eight counts in the indictment and not guilty of the remaining two counts. The district court entered judgments of conviction against Noriega upon the jury's verdict and sentenced him to consecutive imprisonment terms of 20, 15 and five years, respectively. Noriega timely appealed his convictions. During the pendency of that appeal, Noriega filed in district court a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This court deferred further consideration of Noriega's initial appeal while the district court heard Noriega's new trial motion. When the district court denied that motion, Noriega took a second, timely appeal. Both matters now are properly before this court.

source(www.law.berkeley.edu...

Nope. Paul would have said that BL was dead years ago and had been being used as a pretext to continue the war. Then he would bring the soldiers home and close the opium pipeline rather than making it bigger,

If Ron paul was the president during/before 9/11, you most likely would not even know who osama bin laden was, since you would have no reason to, since he would have no reason to attack U.S or even assume responsibility for it. Same with alot of other issues. He would not interfere with other countries so they would have no reason to hate the U.S, thereby preventing alot of crap to even happen in the first place, which you are forced to contend with today. Like the patriot act, airport naked scanners etc.

reply to post by NeoVain

TextIf Ron paul was the president during/before 9/11, you most likely would not even know who osama bin laden was, since you would have no reason to, since he would have no reason to attack U.S or even assume responsibility for it.

So,the history of the world would be different!

reply to post by coyotepoet

continue the war

I don't think that Ron Paul can be used.

reply to post by diamondsmith


" Because the crime was committed on US territory!! "


Well , was Osama Bin Laden EVER Indited by the Justice Department during Bush's Presidency for the Attacks on 9/11 ? Was there ANY Evidence Presented that Showed his Involvement in it ? Was Osama Bin Laden EVEN ALIVE during the Attacks on 9/11 considering his Reported Kidney Ailment and his Suffering from Marfan's Disease ? I think your Question here in this Thread ASSUMES to much to even be Considered Justifiable to ask .

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

Consider Justifiable to ask .

Mistakes will be paid in future.

reply to post by diamondsmith


This is one of these interesting what if questions that we will now never know the answer to and about which we can only speculate. I think it would take a fool to claim that Operation Neptune Spear would not have gone down any differently or that the aftermath would have been different. Specifically in relation to the weather or not Bin Laden would have been granted a fair trial rather than have been blatantly assassinated it is my view that regardless of who the president was he would have died. The sad truth is that Bin Laden really did have to die, taking him alive was never a possibility and regardless of who the president was that would always have been the case.

Based on the little I have read about Ron Paul I have to say I really don’t believe if he were in Obama’s shoes he would have been able to have naturalised Bin Laden as he would have placed to much restriction on the intelligence apparatus that led to the removal of Bin Laden. However assuming he did have the ability to firstly enable the intelligence services to have perused Bin Laden the outcome would always have to have been assassination. With that said however I do think Ron Paul may have been more transparent with the American people by providing at the very least a photo of Bin Laden’s body and dealt with the aftermath in a much more appropriate manor.

Also op just in relation to a couple of statements you have made I would like to point out firstly that Bin Laden was never wanted for the attacks on 9/11 but he was for the 1998 embassy bombings, they caught the guy who is said to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, KSM. Secondly your thread seems to come from the assumption that 9/11 was a inside job I do not believe this to be true, I believe in the OS however even assuming that you are right and 9/11 was a false flag it would be very unwise to assume that Ron Paul would ever admit to this if he became POTUS.

Well this is all under the assumption that bin Laden was found and killed in the first place, a claim to which no one here has proof of being true. Until that is cleared up, it's very hard to speculate how another commander in chief would have conducted it.

As the story goes, bin Laden was unarmed during the raid, so he should have been taken alive and brought back to US soil for trial. It's the least our Government could do to pay our nation back for ten years of American lives, blood, sweat, tears, not to mention money trying to find the guy in the first place, regardless of the laws of war or whether or not they were legally in the right to assassinate him.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

" Because the crime was committed on US territory!! "


Well , was Osama Bin Laden EVER Indited by the Justice Department during Bush's Presidency for the Attacks on 9/11 ? Was there ANY Evidence Presented that Showed his Involvement in it ? Was Osama Bin Laden EVEN ALIVE during the Attacks on 9/11 considering his Reported Kidney Ailment and his Suffering from Marfan's Disease ? I think your Question here in this Thread ASSUMES to much to even be Considered Justifiable to ask .

edit on 24-12-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

[/quote

Bin Laden never had any Kidney problems short of a few kidney stones at best, he did not have Marfans syndrome however it has been claimed he may have suffered from Addisons disease. It is also important to remember that yes he did give the go ahead for the 9/11 attacks and was instrumental in funding the attacks and selecting targets however KSM was the mastermind who initially had some 10 plus targets and on Bin Laden’s orders had to reduce this number. It is also worth keeping in mind that long before 9/11 America had been in a secret war with Bin Laden he was well known even before 9/11.

edit on 24-12-2011 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

reply to post by diamondsmith

I don't think that Ron Paul can be used.

Didn't say that, I said that Osama Bin Laden, though really dead for years, was being used as a pretext to continue the war in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by jheated5
Bin Laden did NOT have U.S. citizenship, why would he be afforded a trial?

why do we give trials to somali pirates then??

Originally posted by Sek82
Well this is all under the assumption that bin Laden was found and killed in the first place, a claim to which no one here has proof of being true.

except for the supposed pictures the government has of the operation, but said were to graphic for television (LOL)
then like 2 months later gaddaffis dead body is dragged, bleeding from the face on my TV. OH THE IRONY!