"Killing bin Laden was illegal! They should have captured him & brought him to trial!"

[ProfessionalLeftist]

Really? Ya think binLaden would submit to that? I don't think so.

I asked one of these people who are claiming that killing binLaden is illegal why no one said that when bu$h killed Saddam? Crickets....

Hypocrisy, much? Hmm...

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. The two arguments in your post have little to do with ea other

You're making folks who wanted a tribunal (like the one for KSM, the ARCHITECT OF 9/11) out to be kooks who are insufficiently patriotic to be satisfied at a gangland-style slaying of America's #1 enemy in the dark with no witnesses.

And Saddam was both captured AND brought to trial.

[maddezmom]

2. not commenting on OBL

but Saddam was brought to trail in Iraq.

[sabrina 1]

3. Bush didn't kill Saddam. Saddam was put on trial in Iraq.

Bin Laden was unarmed, according to both US and Pakistani sources now. So, he would not have had a choice and could easily have been arrested. Frankly though, with our track record of torture and mistreatment of detainees, he's better off dead.

[EFerrari]

5. Bush did kill both of his sons, though.

And then there were all those other people that died when he bombed that restaurant, targeting Saddam.

What a bloody decade.

[sabrina 1]

6. Yes, I remember that barbarism well.

And it looks like we intend to continue down the path of assassinating people so it's likely to be another bloody decade.

[malaise]

9. Absolutely

Some dangerous precedents are being established - that is my fear.

[EFerrari]

13. We're regressing apace.

Unfortunately, Obama seems to be a big fan of these JSOC people, who in addition to doing targeted assassinations also run one of the two drone programs in Pakistan. That won't blow back.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. I predict after Obama's re-election we'll see a return to Star

Chamber courts and drawing and quartering of the convicted.

[browntyphoon]

17. Those Hussein boys you love so much made a poor choice to start a gunfight with the wrong people.

They could have surrendered but chose not to.

Fuck 'em

[EFerrari]

28. That's funny.

The Pentagon goes into a country on a false pretext and fuck those people if they all don't fall in line.

USA!

LOL

[Xithras]

21. Uh, no, they chose their fate

Their home was approached by members of the 65th Military Police force, with Special Forces on hand as a backup. The intent was to arrest them.

The Hussein boys opened fire on the American force, and American soldiers returned fire. They were killed in the firefight that followed.

If they had chosen the civilized route and submitted to trial, they wouldn't have died that day. Instead, they chose to go out in a blaze of bullets. They likely knew that they were dead men either way.

[EFerrari]

27. The civilized route, surrendering to the illegal invaders?

That's hilarious.

[browntyphoon]

16. Empathizing with Osama?

The world is a better place with him gone.

[EFerrari]

29. That's right. Minding human rights is empathizing with Osama.

LOL

[JVS]

4. So tasers are just for 12 year old kids now?

[JDPriestly]

7. Theoretically, they should have brought him to trial.

But, practically, it would probably have been impossible to conduct a fair trial.

In a trial, both sides have to be able to bring evidence and witnesses. It would have been very difficult to assemble credible witnesses of any kind as I see it. In that sense, this situation is very different from the NAZI regime that was given an airing in the Nuremburg trials.

The one thing we can be pretty certain of is that Osama Bin Laden was a conspirator in terrorist attacks. His co-conspirators would not be likely to testify against him. His victims would not be able to identify him. The hard drives and intelligence about his activities are the evidence against him. But our government cannot release that evidence because it is needed for further investigations.

So, Obama was between a rock and a hard place. The facts here are very different from those in the case with the blind Sheik in which the conspiracy and more of the conspirators were available for trial in the US.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

8. "But, practically, it would probably have been impossible to conduct a fair trial. "

Exactly.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Again - where is that exception in the constitution?

The one that says "if it is probably impossible, ignore standard procedures and due process"?

[elias49]

12. There IS always a military tribunal...just saying.

With Patreaus (I can never get that spelling right) to be the new top gun at DOD, expect a lot more extrajudicial monkey business in the coming years. As we take possession of the Middle East.

[mmonk]

10. I'm not a hypocrite at all.

I always support the rule of law no matter how unpopular. I'm not in the business of determining whether shooting dead an unarmed murderer is legal given an order which may or may not be legal. I just support an assemblance of the rule of law. Without it nothing separates us from anyone else.

[meow mix]

11. capture him, and things go crazy.. more innocents hurt over this asshole?

no way.

anyone who proposes this.. also an asshole.

[librechik]

14. Saddam was brought to trial before execution n/t

[firehorse]

15. Trial where? Saudi Arabia didn't want him, NYC can't afford a trial, Gitmo is stain

hi-lighting the fact that we have engaged in behavior as low as the people we deemed terrorists, thus making us hypocrites and terrorists ourselves.

Cheaper, quicker, cleaner... just to kill him.

I would have preferred him captured alive, sitting in a cave jail with bars on the front, while his trial goes on. I would have preferred for us to once set an example of due process, trust in the legal system instead of cowboy vigilante-ism.

I would have preferred if they captured him 6 months ago, kept it quiet while they gathered the folks who were in the computer files. Now those people will be scattering like cock roaches, turning themselves into future OBL's.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. The International Criminal Court

[Warren Stupidity]

19. offhand I don't think we ask permission when 'bringing people to trial'.

So "Ya think binLaden would submit to that" seems to be a massively irrelevant issue with respect to how we prosecute suspects alleged to have committed acts of terrorism.

I am missing the part of the constitution where it says "except if the alleged crimes are really awful".

[LynneSin]

20. Bush only killed his sons, not Hussein himself

Just saying :D

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Bush did NOT kill Saddam. Jeesh EPIC FAIL - n/t

[KittyWampus]

25. Makes you wonder, when people post crap like that.

[EFerrari]

31. Well, that trial wasn't going to wind up any other way. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Yeah, that is probably true. I knew when the US turned him over to

tbe Iraqis that it would devolve into a kangaroo court farce of justice. Just like this pursuit and extra-judicial execution of OBL has.

[meow mix]

24. WAR CRIMES!!!! WE DEMAND CHARGES - IMPEACH!!

:crazy:

[JohnnyRingo]

30. Israel hunts down and assassinate terrorists all the time.

They don't even use military forces, but a hit squad that permeates international borders as I understand it. I don't know if it's effective, but there's less global outrage for that than what I've read on this site concerning bin Laden.