Should Bin Laden Have Gotten Some Kind of Trial?

So it's been 3 days and every thread about bin Laden's death has now turned into conservatives bringing up various conspiracy theories and reasons why it's actually a bad thing that he's dead. Oh well, who's surprised?

Semitics and Islamics are fighting for their freedom from US imperialism and genocide so don't expect the current generation of US leaders to treat Semitic people fairly. It will be up to the next generation of US leaders to rectify it's hatred of Islam and of Semitic people. In the meantime Islam must defend it's historic lands from Zinists and it's Semitic people from US racism.

I'm still baffled that people believe that a legal document in paper form is edited in photoshop.

Richard Queer wrote:

and had resources that exceeded what some countries had

I'm pretty sure that even Zimbabwe can come up with half a dozen boxcutters!

where your dreams become spunk wrote:

So it's been 3 days and every thread about bin Laden's death has now turned into conservatives bringing up various conspiracy theories and reasons why it's actually a bad thing that he's dead. Oh well, who's surprised?

Actually, I'm surprised that the Tea Party aren't all over this; the Government usurping the right of the People to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, that is the very definition of "big government" (much more so than taxes or healthcare programs), and it's the first step on the road to a dictatorship. I would have thought it was the natural position of the Tea Party to resist this?

Ideally, yes. Under the rule of law. Some don't want him to be on trial since he might reveal the collaboration with

the US in the 80s. Just like SH was sentenced for the murder

of 152 people in Iraq and not for genocide against the Kurds.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67916529@N00/341890910/

And, no I am not supporting Al Qaeda or Taleban.

You shouldn't be surprised. "The People" do not have "the right ... to decide who is innocent and who is guilty". The founders of the American government established the "judicial branch" of the "government" for that purpose. This "right" is one of the stated primary purposes of the government, by design. Perhaps the courts can decide if the "executive branch" exceed its authority, but this is not a right of the people.It also has nothing to do with "big government", "dictatorship", or the mandate of the "Tea Party".

Total Knob wrote:

Actually, I'm surprised that the Tea Party aren't all over this; the Government usurping the right of the People to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, that is the very definition of "big government" (much more so than taxes or healthcare programs), and it's the first step on the road to a dictatorship. I would have thought it was the natural position of the Tea Party to resist this?

In principal, Americans should value having him captured, and tried with due process, maybe in the International Court. Bin Laden is not an American citizen, so can not claim direct protection by the American constitution, but nevertheless, Americans should value due process for non-Americans too.In practice, or in war, this is not always possible.Such treatment for terrorists doesn't always seem fair, especially when you consider the many innocent victims of terrorist attacks who are killed without "a fair trial, having their say before punishment, etc."If anyone thinks Bin Laden was "framed" for 9/11, people shouldn't forget that he was already condemned to death before 9/11, by the Clinton administration, for his self-admitted role in a previous WTC bombing, and the attack on the USS Cole.

Illogical wrote:

If we're this great nation which we are and we stand by certain values like giving people a fair trial, having their say before punishment, etc. Then shouldn't we be giving even the most vile creatures some kind of trial?

How about giving the 10,000,000 Palestinians held in jail by the US and Israel, their voice at the U.N. The U.S. keeps vetoing any resolutions condemning Nazi Israel and US Nazi-Ziionism.

Snortner wrote:

He already had a trial - SEALS were simply delivering justice.

It now appears those brave Seals executed a bunch of unarmed people.

"Four of the five people shot to death in the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, including the al-Qaida leader himself, were unarmed and never fired a shot, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday — an account that differs markedly from the Obama administration's original claims that the Navy SEALs came under heavy small-arms fire in a prolonged firefight.

According to the officials' account, as the first SEAL team moved into the compound, they took small-arms fire from the guest house in the compound. The SEALs returned fire, killing bin Laden's courier and the courier's wife, who died in the crossfire. (crossfire?)

The second SEAL team entered the first floor of the main residence and could see a man standing in the dark with one hand behind his back. Fearing he was hiding a weapon, the SEALs shot and killed the lone man, who turned out to be unarmed.

As the U.S. commandos moved through the house, they found several stashes of weapons and barricades, as if the residents were prepared for a violent and lengthy standoff — which never materialized.

The SEALs then made their way up a staircase, where they ran into one of bin Laden's sons on the way down. The Americans immediately shot and killed the son, who was also unarmed.

Once on the third floor, the commandos threw open the door to bin Laden's bedroom. One of bin Laden's wives rushed toward the NAVY SEAL in the door, who shot her in the leg.

Then, without hesitation, the same commando turned his gun on bin Laden, standing in what appeared to be pajamas, and fire two quick shots, one to the chest and one to the head. Although there were weapons in that bedroom, Bin Laden was also unarmed at the time he was shot.

Instead of a chaotic firefight, US officials says, the American commando assault was a precision operation, with SEALs moving carefully through the compound, room to room, floor to floor. "

it was his choice wrote:

He was only shot because he resisted arrest. Had he submitted to arrest, he would be awaiting trial right now.

.

That is not true at all. He was unarmed and not resisting when he was shot to death.

rekrunner wrote:

If anyone thinks Bin Laden was "framed" for 9/11, people shouldn't forget that he was already condemned to death before 9/11, by the Clinton administration, for his self-admitted role in a previous WTC bombing, and the attack on the USS Cole.

The fact he admitted it is an argument for those who want to circumvent the court system, be it a domestic, military or international court. But again, back to our values. We're always on this moral high horse, telling other countries how they should do this or that. And waving our Constitution around and saying; See how wonderful we are? Everybody gets a fair trial, due process, representation, freedom of speech, etc. But even if someone goes up in front of a video camera and says "yep, it was me, I did it. I blew em up, I'm happy, praise Allah" does that mean we should just take their word for? I mean the guy alledgedly just pulled off a plan that killed thousands of innocent civilians, is it far fetched that a guy like that might tell a lie, or make it up for some other reason? That's why we have a defendent come before a court and enter a plea. If at that time the accused wants to plead guilty then that's another story. He's guilty. But dont we have an obligation to do that; To bring him in so he can enter a plea before a judge in a court on some kind?

Not a big thinker are you? In a trial the jury decides if the defendant is innocent or guilty, not the judge. And who makes up the jury? The People, not the Government.

By taking the decision to summarily execute bin Laden, Obama usurped the powers of the 6th Amendment - big government in all its glory.

Illogical wrote:

NativeSon wrote:

What I am interested in is UBL's reaction when he finally knew that THE AMERICANS HAD COME FOR HIM.

I had wondered about that too. He must have needed a new pair of shorts. In an instant he must have known he was done for. I even wonder if there was some little trial or at least some words prepared for his ears prior to his death.

.....And I will strike down upon thee with great vengence and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the lord! When I lay my vengence upon thee.

Jules

I heard that his last words were "OH great, I need a house full of Navy Seals like I need another hole in my head".

Dude, this is what I hear you saying: 'I'm upset that Bin Laden is no longer alive'. Any reasoning behind an argument like that just eludes me. If you haven't already established yourself as the biggest jackass on this board then this line of thinking ought to give you claim to the title.

seriously, what the ever loving hell are you people talking about!? Never in all my years did I think that a website, full of misguided conservatives, would be making these bizarre arguments. You're telling me that you actually give a flying rat's ass whether or not Osama bin Laden, of all people, got a "fair trial"!? If there was one person on the face of this earth who doesn't deserve a fair trial, well, I think we'd all agree that that would be OBL. But apparently we don't all think that, that the mastermind behind a massive terrorist organization didn't get what was coming to him. Hell has evidently frozen over. Look - he was asking for it, and we let him have it. This is all coming from one of the biggest liberals you'll ever meet.

dougie fresh wrote:

Dude, this is what I hear you saying: 'I'm upset that Bin Laden is no longer alive'. Any reasoning behind an argument like that just eludes me. If you haven't already established yourself as the biggest jackass on this board then this line of thinking ought to give you claim to the title.

Well, there's a very good reason you hear me saying that. Allow me to retort: You're a complete f***ing moron who cant comprehend!

gasser wrote:

Wtf? What is with the right wing guys finding a conscience the day Bin Laden gets the knife? Cheerleading the war(s), cheerleading wiretaping, justifications for rendition and torture, justifications for Guantanamo - but killing Bin Laden without a trial? I object sir!

Here's how it works, if you instigate an international war and are the target of a ten year manhunt and when found the Navy Seals show up at your door, then you're probably not going to be having a trial.

Must be opposite day. Last I checked liberals were the ones saying terrorists deserved a trial. Today, they are applauding OBL's death sans a trial.

irony killed the cat wrote:

Funny how Obama hates America but there are accounts from the local grocers that he was having only the best named brand items delivered, loved Coke and Pepsi.

What do Obama's drink choices have to do with this? Oh, and he does hate America.