Should Bin Laden Have Gotten Some Kind of Trial?

Are you suggesting that Clinton and Bush also killed Osama?

OK, I'll try hard not to be obtuse. I understand what you are saying, and the dangers involved to my personal liberty. I still remember a few things I learned from school about what concerned our founding fathers.

If I look at something like this:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/intelligence-official-acknowledges-policy-allowing-targeted-killings-americans

then all of your arguments make sense to me, and I am shocked and concerned about this admission, and all the things you say, for all the reasons you say, and for the reasons the ACLU identify.

If I understand you correctly, you think the case of Bin Laden is no different, because the real threat to my liberty is that "the people's" role was bypassed and usurped by the government.

You mentioned "checks and balances". If I remember correctly from the 5th grade, this means that no single branch of the government is unchecked, because the other branches have some role or influence, and the people have their roles too, in all the branches.

In the case of Bin Laden, this specific action was approved by both legislative and executive branches of the government. In 2001, in an "Authorization for use of Military Force", Congress recognized that "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States", and it was "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress" that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Do dictators require Congressional approval by two houses? Do you think President Obama abused this authorization, because maybe the link to Bin Laden's involvement in the 2001 attacks hasn't been properly established? Do you think the combined government branches usurped my right to play a role in "due process", whatever that means, and this is cause for great concern?

These are honest questions, not rhetorical ones.

Total Knob wrote:

Are you suggesting that Clinton and Bush also killed Osama?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating as a fact that during the Clinton and Bush administrations, specific individuals of Al Qaeda were targeted for what you wish to describe as "summary execution". Clinton and Bush never got bin Laden, but a number of his lieutenants were killed as the primary targets of specific operations.

If the Boondock saints were real...Bin Laden would have been dead years ago

F*** no

rekrunner wrote:

Do dictators require Congressional approval by two houses? Do you think President Obama abused this authorization, because maybe the link to Bin Laden's involvement in the 2001 attacks hasn't been properly established? Do you think the combined government branches usurped my right to play a role in "due process", whatever that means, and this is cause for great concern?

Interesting questions; just to clarify, I'm not saying that the US has become a dictatorship, only that this realignment of powers has the potential to be the first step down that road.

I think you may be conflating the purpose of the Congressional authorization - which is clearly defensive in nature ("in order to prevent any future attacks") - with Obama's stated purpose in pursuing bin Laden into Pakistan (from his May 2nd speech: "authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice") which is clearly retributional in nature.

Now it may have been possible at one time for the Government to argue that bin Laden was involved in plotting future attacks (and a statement was put out after his death claiming that the computers seized at his house implicate bin Laden in future plots - but the same statement also contained the since repudiated claim that bin Laden was armed and firing on the troops when he was killed, so who knows what's true - but, and you can call me conspiracy nut if you want to, had they found any concrete evidence of another plot against the US, or even against US forces overseas that would have been a BIG banner headline by now), but through the Wikileaks cables, and other sources it has been fairly conclusively shown that not only was bin Laden sidelined from the actual planning of al-Qaida operations, but that the government was fully aware of this.

So, in short, do I think that the Congressional authorization is not Constitutionally sound? Given that it is explicitly a defensive authorization, I think it is clearly within the remit of the Government. Do I think Obama exceeded the authority given to him by Congress? Yes, I do, and I think that, in doing so he has placed his popularity at the polls above his sworn duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability.

And you think that I think that those killings are OK? Why don't you put up some names, places and dates? That way I can know what you are talking about and I don't have to guess.

Total Knob wrote:

Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right?

No, sometimes it more than two to make it right.

You don't give a trial to a guy waving a gun randomly through a crowd.

What trial? what justice? This is hyprocrisy at its worst. Because we happen to the most powerful country does not mean we spit in the face of international law and the sovereignty of another country. Even the most vile crimininals are supposed to be afforded to due process, the right to be tried, and to be proven guilty in a court. Where are we headed to--a fascist state ruled by thugs and deceit?:

http://www.rense.com/general94/staged.htm

Yes. However, due to the fact that he was involved in a fire fight with US Navy SEALs, its not like they could just tell everyone to stop so they could give Osama a trial. Besides, he would have received the death penalty anyway, so why does it matter?

TROLL ALERT

TROLL ALERT

TROLL ALERT

TROLL ALERT

The War Room decided that they would put a bullet in his head. Did he deserve it - yes. Would he suffer worse if the world actually put his ass on trial and then executed him - yes. He should have been executed in public like any other international Nazi war criminal.

But they were cowards and did the cowardly thing of putting a bullet in his head and dumping his body in the ocean. And then had the gall to claim victory.

this is like saying Hitler should have a trial

How many dollars and how long did it take the US to take out Osama? Nothing for the US to proud of or celebrate.

It is like flunking high school every year for 10 years and then having a huge party when you pass and graduate when you are 30yo.

only trial he deserves is a 10k time trial

Bin Laden was never even proven to be the one behind the 9/11 attacks. We broke the rules to kill him. Are we not supposed to be the good guys? Then why would we pull something like this?

FogRunner wrote:

You don't give a trial to a guy waving a gun randomly through a crowd.

This is correct.