Should Bin Laden Have Gotten Some Kind of Trial?

rekrunner wrote:

You ask good questions, but these questions were already asked and answered, beyond reasonable doubt, under Clinton, as part of an expedited process that had been approved. Bin Laden had his due process and trial.

I don't feel sorry for Bin Laden not having his day in court, but I do feel sorry for his wife, son, and others that were killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Okay let's take it from here: I'm unaware of any process that was approved under Clinton. It's easy to toss things out like that but 'we the people' have a right to know what that process is, who authorized it, etc. So please elaborate a bit more because I'd like to know more. Do you have a source, website?

Also, I dont feel sorry for Bin Laden either, not in the least. That wasn't the point of discussion on this thread. When I saw those towers fall, my first reaction was to nuke the entire middle east, metaphorically speaking. My point here is the way we handled this situation. Was it the right way? Was it the wrong way? I put it up for debate. Much like the greeks did in antiquity. The Socratic Method. Read Plato. He wrote all about Socrates. And his methods. He would propose a question and then both sides would discuss various points of view in an attempt to come to a rational answer.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't know the details, but I've seen on another thread that there is still some kind of process that the president and the CIA (and whoever else) must follow, before a person like Bin Laden is put on a "shoot to kill on sight" list. Apparently this process was already applied as far back as under the Clinton administration, before 9/11. You ask good questions, but these questions were already asked and answered, beyond reasonable doubt, under Clinton, as part of an expedited process that had been approved. Bin Laden had his due process and trial.

How can you be so clueless about the laws of your own country?

In 1998 Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to kill bin Laden. The memo had been sent to Clinton by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, at the request of CIA Director George Tenet.

These facts are easily researchable. Can you tell me where the "due process" is in the above chain of memos? No you can't (and not least because you don't even know what due process is).

You are way out of your depth, and trying to excuse the inexcusable without the knowledge to do so.

No, the man, and i use that term loosely, does not deserve anything "fair". what is wrong with you people.

Throwback term: "Target of Opportunity"

Wrong again. On the contrary, I am a big thinker. I think you misunderstand the American people's rights, and the definition of "big government".Let's try thinking through the basis for your outrage a little bit further than you have.Who makes up the Government, especially a government of the people, by the people, for the people? People! So in effect you are outraged, because "the people" allegedly usurped the rights of "the people".Many trials do not have a jury, and the outcome is decided by a judge, or a panel of judges. Even the verdicts of trials by jury can be overruled by a judge, in cases of obvious injustice. This would be especially true in the case of Bin Laden, as it would not be possible to find a group of unbiased "peers", who wouldn't already be tainted with prejudice, to form a complete and impartial jury. It would look like a lynch mob, or a kangaroo court, to the outside world.Let's back up one more step to help think your idea through a little further. If Bin Laden were captured, would he be tried in an American court by a jury of American "peers"? Which court would have jurisdiction? It's more likely he would have been tried in an independent court like the International Criminal Court, or he would have been detained and tried in an American Military Court.President Obama can not take away a right from the American people that they did not have. Under the Bill of Rights, US citizens have a constitutional right to a fair trial with due process, but the US "people" do not have any granted or inherent right or jurisdiction to convict or release a non-US citizen such as Bin Laden. You can not reasonably conclude that President Obama took away the American people's right to convict Bin Laden.You might argue that President Obama "usurped" Bin Laden's 6th (and 7th) Amendment rights, but that raises the question if Bin Laden, a non-US citizen, is protected by the Bill of Rights. How governments treat foreign citizens is usually covered by other treaties, and conventions, not by the American Constitution, and Bill of Rights, which delimits how the American government must govern the American people."Big government" usually implies some increased, inefficient, and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, or interfering with personal or private matters (such as sexual preferences), or interfering with a company's desire to reap private profits, at the expense of the public. Pre-condemning Bin Laden can not be seen as a general private matter to anyone, except Bin Laden himself. If anything, exercising a process that expedites a decision, bypassing the normal bureaucratic channels, must be seen as the exact opposite of "big government". In the extreme case, we could cut this "judicial branch" right off, and government would get a lot smaller. Then your "dictatorship" claim might gain some traction. But this individual act does not bring us closer to that scenario.

Total Knob wrote:

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.

They told me when I voted for George W. Bush that we would be unilaterally invading sovereign nations, executing foreign nationals without a trial, with evidence obtained through torture at CIA black ops prisons.

no doubt that they could have used a taser or the like if they'd wanted to capture him alive. they wanted him dead. we all wanted him dead.

You're a big something - you probably shouldn't think with it though!

Your whole post just demonstrates that you have no clue what you are talking about, so I'll try to make it easier for you:

1) My point has nothing to do with Osama's rights (although I would argue that this sentence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." means that America was founded on the ideal that Americans should treat everyone as if they were protected by the Bill of Rights) to a fair trial, but the right of the American people to be free from dictators.

2) The right to trial by jury creates the right of the People alone (and not the Government) to pass judgement on suspected wrongdoers, since the Founders knew that giving the right to pass judgement to persons in a position of power invites abuse of that power (one person having the power of judge, jury and executioner is not a good thing, ask any Egyptian).

3) Obama abrogated this right of the People, thereby taking the power of judgement into the Government. This is a far more serious example of big government than Universal Healthcare - if you can't see that then you should simply sit in a corner and wait for the storm troopers to come and kick down your door.

Try and respond to my point if you can, don't keep throwing out red herrings.

But you are saying things like "the people have the right to decide who is innocent and guilty", and that "President Obama usurped the 6th amendment rights (did you mean of the people? or of Bin Laden? Actually neither makes sense.)If you knew all these things about Clinton, and Sandy Berger, and the NSA and the CIA, how can you possibly blame President Obama for now usurping the people's rights? And how can you construe the 6th Amendment as the right of the people to decide who is innocent and who is guilty? What would give Bin Laden protection under the 6th Amendment?But you are right about one thing -- I don't know the process about how such an authorization to kill bin Laden gets approved. I think most Americans are as "clueless" as I am about this subject. I take it on faith, at my own personal risk, that some kind of process exists, within the NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, etc., that requires some independent authorization, justification, or fact-checking, before authorizing to kill someone, bypassing the normal process. It's not just one person unilaterally making the call. You just confirmed that at least 3 people were involved. I also see that the Fifth amendment gives the government some exceptions.

Total Knob wrote:

How can you be so clueless about the laws of your own country?

In 1998 Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to kill bin Laden. The memo had been sent to Clinton by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, at the request of CIA Director George Tenet.

These facts are easily researchable. Can you tell me where the "due process" is in the above chain of memos? No you can't (and not least because you don't even know what due process is).

You are way out of your depth, and trying to excuse the inexcusable without the knowledge to do so.

Ideally? Absolutely.

Realistically? Not sure it was practical.

But you are saying things like "the people have the right to decide who is innocent and guilty", and that "President Obama usurped the 6th amendment rights (did you mean of the people? or of Bin Laden? Actually neither makes sense.)

This isn't that hard (or it shouldn't be): the 6th Amendment gives an accused the right to trial by Jury, but it also means that the RIGHT to determine an accused's guilt or innocence rests with the people. You've heard (I hope) of the phrase "checks and balances", well this is one of the checks on the otherwise unfettered power of the Government, and Obama just abrogated on it. Can you honestly not understand this point?

If you knew all these things about Clinton, and Sandy Berger, and the NSA and the CIA, how can you possibly blame President Obama for now usurping the people's rights?

Because Obama actually did it, had Bush done it, or even Clinton, I'd be saying the same thing about them.

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?

Should the people in all of those planes and buildings gotten advanced notice? Don't be a dumbass Illogical, we all know there was no capturing OBL, he had to be put down like a rabid dog

You make Obama sound Republican.

The way the SEALs systematically went room to room, killing all the terrorits and connected individuals tells us that they knew that if any were not killed on the spot, an alert would have gone off to the top guys in the compound, and likely a self-destruct button would have been pushed, and we would not get OBL or the intel from his computers. I think it was handled perfectly. The people who planned the operation and those who signed off on it should be given due honor.

ManFromTheMitten wrote:

Should the people in all of those planes and buildings gotten advanced notice? Don't be a dumbass Illogical, we all know there was no capturing OBL, he had to be put down like a rabid dog

Implication: When attacked by barbarians, become barbarians ourselves.

I see.

Logical wrote:

ManFromTheMitten wrote:

Should the people in all of those planes and buildings gotten advanced notice? Don't be a dumbass Illogical, we all know there was no capturing OBL, he had to be put down like a rabid dog

Implication: When attacked by barbarians, become barbarians ourselves.

I see.

absolutely correct. be the meanest SOB in the valley, get the job done, and after you win its back to business as usual. how else would you like it handled?

The New uncleB wrote:

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.

True, UBL was unarmed. But how do you know he was not resisting? That's just sheer speculation. Shots were fired at the Seals, maybe not a prolonged firefight like first reported, but shots were fired.

Sorry I didn't have any references for you. I just recalled seeing on the news, shortly after 9/11, in response to criticism that Clinton was weak on defense, and that this weakness allowed 9/11 to happen, that Clinton had authorized the CIA to kill Bin Laden on sight.But "Total Knob" did some of the work, giving enough clues (Sandy Berger, George Tenet, Memorandum of Notification) to know that Clinton authorized the CIA to kill Bin Laden on sight in 1998. Using google and a couple of keywords, here is some more info http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate98moredirectives Obama was condemned to death by the US before the 9/11 attacks (but it appears the message became unclear within the CIA). Like I said, I don't actually know the process involved to get these kinds of things proposed, evaluated, and approved, or if any of the parties exceeded their authority.

Total Knob wrote:

Because Obama actually did it, had Bush done it, or even Clinton, I'd be saying the same thing about them.

But they did. Clinton via the 1998 strike in Sudan and Bush via the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and strikes in Pakistan. The only difference is the degree of detail we're seeing in this instance.