I don't get people's objection to trials.

[howard112211]

As to now, I find myself believing the "OBL resisted arrest and got killed in the process" line, but let's assume that this was actually an execution without a trial.

Read "let's assume". Please simply spare the "but it wasn't an execution" posts. Abstract thinking and all that.

Why are people so obsessed that executing Osama Bin Laden without a trial is better than putting him on trial? Personally, I would have liked to hear his testimony. And besides, the US has the death penalty, and Osama would have likely gotten it, so people would have had their vengance anyway.

So what is the deal? "He could have been found innocent"? Unlikely. And if so, then he probably would have been innocent. So what is the deal? Objection to seperation of powers and due process? I don't get it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OKNancy]

2. I have no objection to a trial, it's just that it didn't go down that way

It's over and done and going on about what might have been won't change things.

[cali]

3. oh, I get why they wouldn't have wanted him alive and put on trial.

I may not agree with it, but I get it. He would have become a rallying point. I'm sure they were afraid that his being in captivity would have unleashed spectacular attacks. He would have gained many more adherents, etc.

Personally, I don't care much one way or another. I can't stand the celebrating shit, but I don't much care that he's dead.

[Hissyspit]

4. Saddam wasn't much of a rallying point.

Neither Timothy McVeigh.

[cali]

5. I don't think Saddam had the following or cult status that bin-Laden

had. McVeigh certainly didn't.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Pakistan is outside the geographic boundaries of the United States.

So the whole due process argument fails me.

He was a quasi-enemy, enemy leader, during a time of unconventional war.

If capture and trial were even remotely possible (and I'd argue that capture was ridiculously unlikely), I'd still prefer taking him out like we did.

Comparisons to actual US citizens just don't work, this is a whole different set of circumstances both legally and morally, IMHO.

Sad about the kids, though, just makes me more angry at that bastard.

[mmonk]

7. I prefer the rule of law. But I don't think it would prove anything

because any real information would be kept from the public. What it would show is that we are different than violent rogues in some way unless it was a show trial.

[DrDan]

8. old testament vengeance feels so good

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rfranklin]

10. Where does the OP say he/she wanted to emulate OBL?

Not a very grownup response.

[Solomon]

14. Yeah but the point is, how do you perceive he would have

gotten a fair trial? By definition any American jury would not be impartial. The world would see it as a Kangaroo court. And we wouldn't just turn him over to some other jurisdiction to try him would we?

[sofa king]

11. It's the hostage-taking.

Were bin Laden captured and the public informed about it, the traditional response of his side would be to take many, many hostages in an attempt to make an exchange. We of course wouldn't agree to that, so many or most of the hostages would die while the trial went on.

This problem would also necessarily occur at the exact same time that our SOCOM forces are as busy as they've ever been, trying to roll up as much of al Qaeda as we can while the information we recovered from the bin Laden compound is still actionable. So forces would have to be diverted from terrorist-killing to hostage search and rescue, which is not the same thing because one action retains the initiative while the other is a reaction to what the other guy is doing.

In my own mind, the best alternative would have been to bag Osama without anybody knowing, using his own communications network to make contact with his second-echelon leaders and discern al Q's organization tree, force him into releasing tapes and statements which reduce tensions and undermine his cause, and track down and kill every single damned one of his Facebook friends.

Unfortunately, that wasn't feasible, as all the academy cadets in that city would not have failed to notice an extraction operation going down just up the street (Edit: and half of the ISI would certainly have noticed that Osama was not returning their calls). So the alternative is to make real sure he's dead and see what we can do with his laptops and thumb drives.

[crickets]

21. Excellent point about hostages.

That hadn't even occurred to me until now, and it's spot on. Nobody wants to go through another Iran hostage situation.

In a perfect world, we could have captured rather than killed bin Laden, obtained as much information as possible to neutralize al Qaeda, then put him on trial at the Hague.

It was never going to happen. Pride would have kept us squabbling about jurisdiction, too many other necks close to home were on the line if he testified, too many inconvenient secrets had to go to the grave with him. Does anyone really think he'd have gotten a fair trial after watching the Saddam show? Rather than closure, it would have been a propaganda nightmare.

We don't have to like it--I know I don't--but that's the reality. It was never going to happen.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. We could have gone the legal route

We could have asked the Pakistanis to detain him, then file for extradition, all that stuff.

Probability of eventual conviction? Zero. Zip. Nada.

If we extracted him to this country for trial, is his illegal capture grounds for dismissal? Dunno. But our team broke about a million Pakistani laws, no doubt, so what's one more?

[Bunny]

13. Well, for one thing, bin Laden could not have been forced to testify.

At least not in a civilian criminal trial. So your plan to hear what he has to say would almost certainly never happen.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. I don't object to trials. However, kangaroo courts are a waste of resources.

I don't think such a spectacle would have been particularly illuminating. Any trial would have been a sideshow and a sham. I don't believe such a thing would do more to serve justice. The outcome would have been the same. OBL would have been executed in the end. Why pretend that there was any other possible outcome?

I could conceive that if we had OBL in custody, his partisans wouuld seek to free him. I could imagine hostage taking or other grizzly scenarios, but I can't imagine a more refined result.

[alc]

16. what type of trial? military or civilian?

Military: we don't get to hear a lot of it. Preferable to no trial but certainly no different outcome, and a lot of costs and protests.

Civilian: I'd hope he has all the rights you or I would have. If we start treating some defendants different than others we're in trouble. I know it already happens that some defendants are treated different, but after all the appeals this will go through there are likely to be some new precedents set we don't want.
So the judge would probably disallow a lot of evidence: bad chain of custody, illegal methods used to collect, we won't admit to source/method, etc.
Especially since it's a death penalty case, I'd hope his lawyers have a lot of leeway. They should be allowed to call in all sorts of people to question and follow pretty broad lines of questioning. These people may need to admit things they don't want to (e.g. we can intercept calls on the secure AT&T satellite phone that we swore to the European courts we couldn't) or lie. I'd guess many lines of questioning will be set up to embarrass the US and/or force us to admit sources and methods.
Just the evidence the prosecution has to provide the defense will likely provide OBL details about our intel gathering that he will pass along.
And after all this, what happens if the jury is not certain about the specific charges that are brought? Or if the find guilty, but appeals court finds that illegal evidence was used or other rights violated? I wouldn't want the appeals court to make exceptions, but would they want to put us through a retrial? What kind of exception could they make that isn't a precedent for future trials? ("only applies to KNOWN terrorists"? who, other than the court decides KNOWN terrorist)

[Javaman]

17. The repukes would have accused the dems of being soft on death. nt

[H2O Man]

18. It's impossible

to be found "innocent." The concept of "not guilty" merely means the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[aikoaiko]

19. Either way, it makes no difference to me.

[Ohio Joe]

20. I don't have any objection to trials

I also do not have any objection to simply taking the monster out.