Should Bin Laden Have Gotten Some Kind of Trial?

Bin Laden was created by the CIA.

Yes, I have no clues, and you seem to think you have all of them. So maybe you can clear a few things up for me.If Bin Laden were a US citizen, committing domestic crimes under US jurisdiction, I could understand your concern.I admit that I am not any kind of lawyer. As such, it is not clear to me:- That the Constitution and Bill of Rights, its amendments, and judicial interpretations, is the governing law regarding the US Government treatment of non US citizens.- The extent and source of authority, and applicable legislation, for the various federal agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, ..., which are not really explicitly defined in the Constitution. Some of them seem to overlap.- That US citizens have the exclusive right to judge acts by non-US citizens, even for crimes committed in the US.- That acts on non-US citizens are governed by the Bill of Rights, and not by other legislation which describes how the US government should conduct foreign policy, or defend itself against external threats.I'm inclined to think, for non US-citizen persons considered an enemy of the state, that the Constitution does not guarantee and afford the same set of protections it affords its own US citizens. The founding fathers, and drafters of the Constitution, were concerned with protecting the citizens within the nation from abuses of their government, and not with protecting the rights of foreign people attacking the nation in acts of war.The sixth amendment in the Bill of Rights gives certain rights to the accused, in criminal prosecutions. You seem to want to say that, by implication and extension, it is the exclusive right of the American people to form the "impartial jury", with the right to pass judgment on crimes committed by non-US citizens. I'm inclined to think that the right forum is no court in the US, but rather somewhere like the International Criminal Court. Have you ever been called for jury duty in The Hague? I bet not.In my recent google/wikipedia research, it looks like the 5th amendment carves out some interesting exceptions, "in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". Maybe similar exceptions exist to authorize such "expedited" treatment of certain non-US citizen enemies of the US. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and don't know if Bin Laden constitutes a "public danger", or if the "War on Terror" counts as a war in this context.Maybe it would help if you explained to me what is the law that governs the relevant federal agencies (e.g. the CIA, the NSA, the Navy, ...), and which law was violated by whom, and what act violated that law. For example, I'm a little confused as to why we need two "investigative" federal agencies (the FBI and CIA), and which laws limit their authority and scope.Perhaps you should also explain what you mean by "big government". As I explained before, to me it is indicative of inefficiency caused by extra, unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, rather than bypassing necessary layers of bureaucracy. I don't see the "executive branch" exceeding its authority, as a valid example of "big government". Bush Jr. overstepped his authority a few times. Do you also think that Bush Jr. was an advocate of "big government", because of this?

Fishing Instructor wrote:

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.

I think you've missed my point - did any of the previous attempts succeed? If you ignore the tinfoil hat brigade, then the answer is "no", until now.

I think that Clinton and Bush were wrong in what they ordered, but since they were unsuccessful then the wrongness of their actions is moot.

What a bunch of morons and Euro-pussies.

BinLaden was not a US citizen. He and his group attacked us in an act of war.

He f****d up, just like the Japanese did in 1941.

End of story for him.

Next in line please.

don't see why not in his case...unless you think despite his admission he's somehow not responsible. i wouldn't want to be punished with torture. then again i'm not plannin to kill 3,000 people.

NPH wrote:

Do you suggest torture as a better option then?

since it's common knowledge i'm not so sure that anyone is worried about being exposed.

fff wrote:

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.

Kind of moot since we lost Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen already anyways. Bahrain, Syria, Israel are next. The new Egyptian democracy has embraced Hamas and Fatah as is brokering the new un-named temporary civilian Palestine Authority which will apply to the U.N. for official negotiation with the United States and temporary Zion Occupation Regime.

'They had no intention of capturing him although they didn't know if he was donning an explosive vest hence the shots.'

That's a very good point

It makes me laugh that in every single Bin Laden photo he's carrying a gun or has one on the wall behind him. Then when the special force soldiers storm his house he sits there sipping green tea

Yes, I have no clues, and you seem to think you have all of them.

Please stop acting all hurt, you are the one who claimed that bin Laden had received "due process" when he clearly hadn't, even the most ardent supporter of Obama's action would have to admit that. Here's a clue for you: if you don't know what a phrase means, you are going to get shat on when you use it wrongly.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, because it isn't addressing any part of my argument; I've explained to you several times the importance of the right to trial by jury in limiting the power of government, and I'm not going to do it again (but I will add that the denial of this right forms part of both the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence as a complaint against the King). If you can't see how trial by jury enables and is fundamental to "government of the people, by the people, for the people" then I am truly sorry for your stupidity.

I understand how limiting powers of the federal government protects its citizens. But Bin Laden is not a citizen, and the federal government is empowered to defend the country.I should have put "due process" in quotes. Otherwise, I still stand by my comment: Bin Laden had his "due process" before Clinton signed the memo in 1998. It just took a long time to execute his sentence. Sorry if that still misuses the term. To be more clear, let's pretend I mean that the federal government acted within the law, respecting all the rights owed to Bin Laden. I wonder how America ever fought a war in the last 230 years, if its Constitution forbids the killing of any enemy, before a fair trial by an American jury. I think killing Bin Laden did not establish a precedent. Was every killing in every war unconstitutional?

No.

Taking him captive would have gotten those 3rd World idiots all riled up & a trial would have cost a fortune.

This was Justice: swift and sure.

It's so cool that they buried him at sea. Hope the sharks, fish and other oceanic life forms who will feed on his rotting corpse don't get indigestion.

rekrunner wrote:

I should have put "due process" in quotes. Otherwise, I still stand by my comment: Bin Laden had his "due process" before Clinton signed the memo in 1998. It just took a long time to execute his sentence. Sorry if that still misuses the term. To be more clear, let's pretend I mean that the federal government acted within the law, respecting all the rights owed to Bin Laden.

I wonder how America ever fought a war in the last 230 years, if its Constitution forbids the killing of any enemy, before a fair trial by an American jury. I think killing Bin Laden did not establish a precedent. Was every killing in every war unconstitutional?

"Due process" or "...respecting all rights..." comes with a "bring him in alive and stand before a judge to enter a plea in some court of law" responsibility doesn't it?

On the 2nd point: I think Bin Laden does establish a precedent. Bin Laden is an enemy to be sure. But he's not a soldier or general for some country. He doesn't wear a uniform. So it's not like your typical war against another country. This man was the primary leader of an international terrorist organization and apparent mastermind of the greatest terrorist attack on US soil. So the questions remain. Does he have a right to a trial under our system of government. Because we could have brought him in alive. Reports make clear, he did not resist. So the order to execute was given, right or wrong. And that order of execution HAD to have come from Barack Hussien Obama. You see I'm not sure if this is consistent with our values and the moral high ground we preach. And maybe that's okay with the majority of people. But it sounds like a bit of hypocracy to me.

And what do we do going forward. Where has this new line been drawn. Can we go around the world executing people suspected of terrorism without trial? Again I'm just looking for answers. I am happy Bin Laden is not with us. But I think we have an obligation to look at what happened and decide if the way we went about it was the right way. And to establish a more comprehensive policy going forward.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or whether you are simply retarded.

Since you obviously are having difficulty grasping the concept without it being spelled out for you in words of one syllable, I guess that's what I going to have to do: my argument is that a trial is not to protect bin Laden, but to protect the Rights of the People, and also the Constitution. The "rights owed" are not to bin Laden, but to the People.

I'm not sure if you understand legal precedent (you obviously have no idea what is involved in due process), but basically once you allow someone to do something (in this case the Government to usurp a power), they can do it again and again, simply by pointing at the time they did it before, until it becomes something they are empowered to do (in this case the power of judgement is removed from the People and becomes a power of the Government).

The Founders recognised (as you seem unable to do) that the power to govern combined with the power to decide who is a criminal is the hallmark of a dictatorship (read the text of the Declaration of Independence), and took steps to prevent that happening.

In short, the executive decision by Clinton (which contains not a sniff of due process), which was completed by Obama, endangers your rights - they're just hoping that you are too dumb to recognise that fact (looks like they are right).

I'm not even going to bother with the idiotic statements about war in your post - they are simply the rhetorical equivalent of you flailing around on the grocery store floor because Mummy won't buy you an ice cream, so I'll tell you what Mummy should have told you a long time ago: "grow up".

Illogical wrote:

But I think we have an obligation to look at what happened and decide if the way we went about it was the right way. And to establish a more comprehensive policy going forward.

Isn't one of the hallmarks of civilization the ability to treat your enemies better than they would have treated you?

I'd say America just failed a massive test, and judging by some of the posts on this thread (check out those superstars of logical thought TViewer and Kevin52 for perfect examples), I think we can see why politicians feel they can act however they want to.

As amusing as those heros of the internet are, people like rekrunner and other pseudo-intellectuals, who believe that a memo prepared by a National Security Adviser and signed by a President constitutes due process, are more frightening to me. rekrunner would let the US fall into dictatorship simply because he has no clue why the provisions of the Constitution exist, nor how they relate to the Declaration of Independence.

Total Knob wrote:

Isn't one of the hallmarks of civilization the ability to treat your enemies better than they would have treated you?

I'd say America just failed a massive test,...

I dont know about better but certainly they should have certain rights. Although those rights often get violated. But look you make some great points on due process. I firmly believe in a trial system. It doesn't have to be a civilian trial, but some kind of trial. be it military or other. Throughout history this has been the case. Good people, bad people, all got trials, or most that is. Many wrongly accused and punished. Many of our most famous people were wrongly accused and punished. Yes we have an obligation, I feel, to have a trial for an accused. Even if he first admits it on a video tape.

We should place every Muslim in America in Concentration Camps and then deport them to the Middle East to pursue happiness with their own kind.

We extended our interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to place Japanese-Americans into Concentration Camps, implement water boarding and torture, to render Muslims to foreign countries, and to ethnically cleansing Palestine of Muslims.

Thus, we can extend the U.S. Constitution to ethnically cleansing the United States of Muslims.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

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.

Total Knob wrote:

I think you've missed my point - did any of the previous attempts succeed? If you ignore the tinfoil hat brigade, then the answer is "no", until now.

I think that Clinton and Bush were wrong in what they ordered, but since they were unsuccessful then the wrongness of their actions is moot.

There have been numerous ranking Al Qaeda specifically and successfully targeted and thousands of faceless foot soldiers killed. Surely you're not suggesting that Bin Laden warranted a trial while lower ranking Al Qaeda do not.

What's the point of the U.S. invading Islamic territory in the 1940s and staying there all theses years. It's been 2011-1945=66 years so far. What the hell are we doing there ? Nothing good is the answer.

Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right?