The Spectacle of a Bin Laden Trial

[otohara]

can you even imagine how God awful it would be? I speak of the sorry state of the MSM. Political media-whores and so-called punditry experts blabbing on and on with lots of opinion, and few facts. Of course the bashing of the President would intensify, because he can't do anything right according to the behemoth right-wing media.

I don't think our mental health would survive the insanity.

A certain radio host keeps siting the Nuremberg trials, I see another O.J. type trial.
This is 2011 after all

He's dead, I'm glad.

[dkf]

1. Me too.

All we need is to be arguing what to do with him and his treatment for years on end.

[otohara]

59. Boy Howdy

wouldn't that be the truth.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. I wonder what we'd say if Pakistanis had found him first?

And killed him on sight?

Pakistanis who weren't funding or hiding Bin Laden, that is.

It would be interesting to know what the response would be
and whether we would be upset they didn't hand him over to us...

[11 Bravo]

2. If it's not too late, try "spectacle" on edit. Signed, the "moran" guy.

[otohara]

7. Thanks

normally I spell it correctly.

[TTUBatfan2008]

3. I think there would be...

a high likelihood of Al Qaeda attempting to kidnap American citizens and demand Bin Laden's release as ransom.

[Old and In the Way]

19. Good point...something I've not heard proffered in the MSM.

I'll bet the potential of such an event weighed into the decision matrix. But I also think allowing OBL to have his day in court might have created a different kind of fireworks that would further divide an already divided country.

[TTUBatfan2008]

24. I definitely think they took into account...

There are pro's and con's for both sides of the argument, but I think at the end of the day they felt it was in the best interest of our country to stay away from such a circus. I definitely think Americans in other countries would instantly become at risk if we took custody of the highest profile "bad guy" on the planet. In addition to civilian risk, there are sources saying that the SEALs were told to think Bin Laden had a suicide vest on unless they found him naked. Obviously they didn't find him naked.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Sometimes due process and following the law can be ugly and messy

That's the main reasons why the Bush administration committed torture, held people without trial and denied suspects basic human rights. They couldn't be bothered with all that talk of due process.

Rule of law is what should separate the United States from the terrorists. We are different and we should have ideals and values that we should uphold without exception.

We must stand for justice and no exceptions should be made. Summary execution is not justice. It's summary execution.

Just my 2 cents.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. It's posts like yours that keep me returning to DU even when it is

at its necrorgiastic worst.

Thank you. I wish you would consider making this an OP. Please PM me if you do, so that I can be sure to weigh in.

[damntexdem]

5. Would have been fine at the International Criminal Court.

But no way would U.S. politics allowed his being turned over to the ICC.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Even though this is exactly the kind of thing the ICC was created for.

A foreign national, bin Laden, heads a group of international terrorists from disparate nations and commits atrocities in several different countries, while operating from bases in three other countries. How can the US make any claim to jurisdiction?

[Old and In the Way]

20. I believe the Bush administration exited the ICC.

We don't need no stinkin' international law to commit war crimes!

[TTUBatfan2008]

29. ICC's jurisdiction...

apparently only goes back to 2002. No way in hell we would risk them letting him walk on a technicality for crimes committed earlier than 2002.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Nevertheless, that would be my preference.

Killing bin Laden to prevent a trial (not saying that is how it went down) shows as much disregard and distrust for our justice system as does the military trials of the Gitmo detainees.

If we can't trust the justice system, we can't respect the justice system. If we can't respect the justice system we lose the whole concept of the rule of law.

Why do you think South Central burned when the court failed to convict the cops? Because the people there saw, once again, that the rule of law is meaningless.

With the assassination of bin Laden, and the military trials at Gitmo, we see that even the government does not trust the law.

And that is sad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. +1

[otohara]

17. Trust & Respect

of our system of law?
Not so much IMO - starting with the highest court in the land.
No I don't trust the justice system, it didn't work for me and it sure as hell isn't working out so well for our democracy thanks to SCOTUS.

Justice comes with a price that most of us can't afford. Justice can be bought, respect has to be earned.

[Solomon]

78. They didn't kill Bin laden "to prevent" a trial. I beleiev they did it

to stop another 9-11.

[spanone]

8. the republicans would not allow it to happen in the united states. they would insist on the military

trying him

[coalition_unwilling]

9. Like our mental health has survived the insanity since 9/11/2001. The

"spectical" of those folks running around in Washington, D.C. and New York City chanting "USA! USA! USA!" really sums it all up in a single image. Summons up images of the middle ages and the burning of witches in the town square.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

[Enrique]

11. so they should have killed OJ too

since that trial was so unpleasant for you.

[otohara]

54. No, Just Bin Laden

we didn't know until OJ just how awful the trial would be and in the end, justice was not served, was it?

Money got that murderer off, it was complete and utter bullshit, a sham.

[EOTE]

13. Yeah, we should get rid of trials altogether.

At the very least, trials which aren't politically expedient. Law and order is for suckers.

[coalition_unwilling]

18. I advocate that we execute anyone accused of a capital crime without

bothering with trials, since trials are 'too expensive,' 'too messy,' 'too dangerous,' 'too soft on criminals' and\or 'just because we can.'

:sarcasm:

Thanks for your post. It's nice to know I'm not completely alone.

[EOTE]

25. I'm amazed this thinking has become so commonplace here.

I don't lament the death of bin Laden, but I worry strongly that so few people, especially here, seem to not give a rat's ass that he was assassinated and will never see a trial. If this were done under Bush, you can bet your ass that 99% of people here would be outraged.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. That's the 'MPROW Syndrome.' (My President, right or wrong). Based on

all the blood lust and atavistic reversion to the 16th century and earlier since Sunday, I'd say your 99% outraged figure errs a bit on the high side and, even had a Repuke done it, the % of those outraged would top out at about 60%.

[Lucky Luciano]

106. Nope, it would have been the only time I tip my hat to *.

[dionysus]

110. no, you're wrong. even if bumbling bush had managed to get him, democrats would not be arguing on

bin ladens behalf that his human right were violated.

jesus christ.

[otohara]

45. I'm Thinking POTUS

is relieved there will be no trial. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg is too...remember the outcry at the thought of holding MSM trial in NYC?
I'm not alone either


NOT :sarcasm:

[EOTE]

46. Good, so I've got your viewpoint now.

If someone of prominence, perhaps even two people of prominence would be relieved at the lack of a trial, the trial should not be. Fuck due process.

[otohara]

51. Well

in this day and age of 24/7 fucked up media we have, I say yes - in this case only.

Yes I'm a horrible person I'm still glad the motherfucker is dead and we don't have to witness the circus of a BIN LADEN trail.

Remember Judge Ito?

[EOTE]

55. In this case only until some other president wants to do it.

Unfortunately, in the real world, they don't hand out "In this case only" cards. Jack Bauer is not the real world. I'm glad bin Laden is dead too, that doesn't mean that justice was served.

[otohara]

56. They Do, It's Called Shoot The Defendent

so we don't have to go through a motherfucking sham of a trail for Osama bin Laden.

[EOTE]

63. Do you have a cite for that? NT

[otohara]

68. FOX News

hey, if they can pull shit out of thin air, so can I.

Got to love the media, they are so fair/balanced, truthful, not racist, loves Muslims.

[EOTE]

77. At least you know from where your ideas originate. NT

[Hugabear]

109. Imagine how much money California could have saved by simply executing OJ Simpson

Now that was a spectacle.

The upcoming Casey Anthony case here in Florida is sizing up to be quite a spectacle as well. I vote we just take her out back behind the Orange County jail and shoot her.

:sarcasm:

[otohara]

21. Law Is For The Rich

poor men go to trail, rich men pay off expensive attorneys and remain at their cushy jobs on Wall Street.

[EOTE]

22. And people whose trials would be messy get assassinated?

Would you draw the line anywhere? At what point should we stop assassinating people just because their trials would be inconvenient? Are you suggesting that because our justice system is corrupt that we should just eliminate it altogether?

[otohara]

28. Nope, Just This One

just bin Laden.

We got his computers, still glad he's dead - no Guantanamo, no trial.

[EOTE]

35. So this is a one time only deal?

That's good. Obama/Bruce Wayne can go about destroying his surveillance equipment. So long as it's JUST this one time, that's all good. Oh, by the way, I've got a neighbor down the street and I'm fairly certain he's molesting kids. Obama should totally have him assassinated. Believe me, his trial would be very messy and involve CHILDREN! Won't you please think of the children and have this man assassinated? Just this once, I promise.

[otohara]

40. Yep, One Time Deal

if you're fairly sure of your molesting neighbor, shouldn't you call the police?

Your neighbor's trail, if it comes to that, would last maybe a week or two and every major network from around the world wouldn't be there. Local paper, local TV, that's about it.

[EOTE]

42. Fuck a trial.

I'm not going to submit the children to that. I can't believe you'd put all these INNOCENT CHILDREN through that? Dear god, why do you despise children so much?

[otohara]

47. I Had Too Many Children

I'm exhausted and now despise all children.

[EOTE]

48. Apparently you despise international law, too. NT

[otohara]

50. What International Law?

the one that says torture is illegal, until you get a corrupt president, who gets a corrupt attorney to say it is legal?

[EOTE]

52. Having a corrupt attorney deem it so doesn't make it legal.

And yes, that's the very one I'm referring to.

[otohara]

38. It's Rigged

to benefit the rich and corporations.
Black men sit in jails, while white collar crime guys on Wall Street continue to make millions.

Have you ever gone through the process of trying to get justice? I have, tried to sue Clear Channel for discrimination - my attorney's thought I had a case at least worth a million dollars. They had unlimited funds to spend of fancy attorney's, I had to bow out and settle when the attorney fees got to be too much. The magistrate judge was more on the side of business.

Justice, or just us?

[EOTE]

43. I have no doubt of that.

And yes, I've gone through the process of trying to get justice and I know that I'm one of the lucky ones. I have no doubt that the system is rigged, it has a shit load of faults. But what you're suggesting is that if someone sees that their house's foundation is beginning to show signs of weakness, just get rid of the foundation. Better to have no foundation than a foundation with cracks, right?

[otohara]

49. Had I Known How Corrupt The Process Was

I wouldn't advise anyone working for Clear Channel or Viacom or any big ass corporation to try to sue.

Another thing I learned, my friends, my coworkers who witnessed things - all lied, because they didn't want to lose their jobs.

You're on your own, when you take on a corrupt corporation in a corrupt justice system.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. Well according to Brian Williams in Panetta interview, we should've assassinated Saddam & Ghadafi.

You know, to "save all those lives of brave American soldiers that didn't need to die in Iraq."

Panetta thought he was talking about why didn't we go after Bin Laden earlier instead of Iraq,

and was perplexed when Brian Williams made clear he meant Saddam.

[treestar]

31. No one said that.

But if we are drawn into a war, we can't try everyone out there. This is OBL, leader of Al Qaeda. We've been trying to defeat AQ for over ten years. It's like saying we can't kill the general of an opposing army, we have to try him.

[EOTE]

34. That's where the slope inevitably leads.

The OP suggests that because a trial would be messy, we shouldn't have had one. Who gets to decide this? Are some worthy of trials and others not? Do you honestly not see what a scary and slippery slope that is?

[treestar]

37. I don't see the slope as slippery here

No one's going to lose the right to trial in this country, for criminal charges, by arguing OBL did not get a trial.

We're being asked here to apply the Constitution overseas to someone who after all has been making war against us.

When it came to those at Guantanamo bay, they had been captured and brought out of the zone of battle.

But this is in the zone of battle. OBL was not going to be taken alive. There was so little chance of that happening. The SEALS do not deserve to be faulted here. It was their call in the end. I can't see how anybody can treat them with this level of scrutiny when they were going for OBL. Gee, you didn't do that job well enough. Just seems wrong to nitpick at them over how this particular mission turned out, pointing out how they did not pull of the near impossible and claiming they should have.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. You're so far behind the curve as to be behind the starting gate. For

starters, there have been numerous credible reports (Reuters and The Atlantic immediately come to mind) that the SEALS were ordered on a 'kill' mission. The SEALs had no 'call' to make. They were following orders. Those who gave the orders, though, might be advised to seek legal counsel. Just a thought. It's not the extra-judicial executions that get you, it's the cover ups. (A little shout out to Watergate history.)

[treestar]

79. I've seen it said both ways so far

Now I don't know whether they had discretion to kill or capture or not.

Even so, you have to admit this is not the same thing as say a raid on a house in the US for a suspect. You're trying to make it equivalent to that, and it's just not.

[dionysus]

108. this is getting ridiculous, frankly. "Those who gave the orders, though, might be advised to seek

legal counsel"

oh really? you want to have obama "lawyer up" because we finally smoked bin laden, after bush's miserable failure in doing so?

good luck selling that talking point, and get a fucking grip. this shit makes "liberals" look like lunatics.

the only people crying about this are fringe clowns and glen greenwald.

[EOTE]

41. But it's saying that assassination is OK.

Even in instances where alternatives exist. You say that OBL wasn't going to be taken alive, yet we didn't even try. It's clear now that he was unarmed at the time of his death. No one is faulting the SEALs here, it's obvious that they were ordered to kill him on sight. If you have any information stating how "impossible" it would have been to take Osama alive, I'd love to see it. Everything that's been confirmed so far suggests it wouldn't have been difficult at all.

[treestar]

80. Assassination can by OK

What about those who tried to assassinate Hitler? The only critique to make of them is that they didn't succeed.

With OBL, who is head of a suicidal terrorist group, who wants to make more attacks on us?

And then there is the good point about how he has placed himself to be impossible to try without other AQ members taking others hostage to get his freedom.

[EOTE]

84. Against an active threat if it's the last option.

Assassinating Hitler obviously would have been one of the few ways of eliminating him as a threat. There was never even the pretense of bringing OBL in alive.

[treestar]

90. If Hitler can be assassinated, why not OBL?

Some cases would be unclear, but for those two, if any, it would be clear.

Anyway, there was no way to take OBL alive.

There were no US casualties. Would you prefer there had been one or two had that been the cost of trying to get OBL alive?

[EOTE]

91. No way to take OBL alive?

And your proof for this assertion is what, exactly? And you are aware that the orders were from the beginning to kill, not capture, right? Why could there not have been an attempt to capture him?

[treestar]

92. OBL was the leader of Al Qaeda, a group that launched

suicide attacks on civilians. It would be safe to assume he'd kill himself before having to answer for his actions. And take other with him if he could. Mohamed Atta and the rest took that way out too.

[EOTE]

113. He was taken out from a distance. He could have just as easily

been knocked out from a distance. If you honestly believe that our military wouldn't have been capable of taking bin Laden out alive, I don't think you know much about our military.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. There was a lot more controversy over the idea of assassinating Hitler than you seem to think

For one thing, given the possibility of a just-as-evil and pissed off Nazi successor suing for peace with the West in the wake of Hitler being successfully whacked prior to D-day, the Holocaust could have continued even longer.

Secondly, is there any evidence that the US would not have taken Hitler alive and tried him at Nuremberg like they did the actual operational architects of the Holocaust in Hitler's senior staff? The KSM example is useful here, since KSM is the person who apparently masterminded the attacks.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. Valkyrie was probably the best chance they had. But Hitler was actively overseeing genocide

From a command position in enemy-held territory. OBL was open to US capture in hiding in ally-held territory.

[TheKentuckian]

14. We don't believe in trials if they might be a spectacle?

I don't notice such an exception in the US Constitution. Did we sign on to an "anti-spectacle" treaty or something?

There is no significance to mundane, spectacle, or in between. Laws, principles, ideals, and values are not just for easy, they are most crucial in the most difficult situations.

[otohara]

23. What Are You Talking About

the spectacle is the media, they make everything a spectacle - this would be the daddy of all spectacles. A grotesque reality show and in the end, justice would have been lost in the slime of today's media.

Like liberals like to say when it comes to the constitution and the second amendment ....The 2nd Amendment was written when people owned guns for hunting - now we have AK47's.

Today's media is the AK47

[TheKentuckian]

87. I'm a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment. Your argument is watery nonsense to me.

[cliffordu]

15. Not to mention every dickhead in the Middle East would be taking hostages

to try and gain his release.

[JuniperLea]

26. That is my thought too...

Spectacle? Eh... we love high drama. Costly? Well, you gotta do what you gotta do in that regard. Dickheads in the ME and elsewhere taking hostages, making threats, blowing more shit up... that should be avoided at all cost. It's bad enough OBL is now a martyr.

I have to think the Navy SEALs did what they needed to do. All this bullshit argument about a firefight, OBL unarmed, etc., is just bullshit speculation. And I think picking away at the story is just foolishness. There's not a chance in hell they should give any more information about this. We don't need to be telling the rest of the world and the rest of the terrorists how our SEALS operate! That is just stupidity, and I'm really sick of seeing it here on DU. Just think of all the crap that would be brought into a trial... and all the speculation.

Three presidents now have said capture or kill. I think the time to speak out against the kill part was before the kill part happened!

I'm glad it's all over. And now that there are fewer excuses, I'll be happy to see more troops come home.

[EFerrari]

62. Every dickhead in the Middle East has a lot of more immediate problems on their plate

than some rich @sshole who has been barely heard from in ten years.

[otohara]

73. Yet The Extremists Find Time

to do all sorts of collateral damage.

Suicide bombing haven't stopped in many ME countries.
Just yesterday, Iraq.

[EFerrari]

76. That's very true. and has nothing to do with bin Laden. n/t

[otohara]

70. Indeed

hadn't thought of that.

[6000eliot]

27. They haven't been able to try ANYONE they have in custody, have they?

[mmonk]

30. Probably because those that pen the laws of civilization don't have TV cameras

in mind. They were thinking of something else.

[treestar]

32. He was not going to surrender for trial

So the whole debate is pointless anyway. It was never a possibility. The whole idea offends logic. Hitler should have been tried, too. But there was no way Hitler was going to allow that.

[TransitJohn]

33. Yes!

Wouldn't it have been great to show off to the world our profound notions of ourselves...justice, liberty, fair play, all that.

[sabrina 1]

44. Everyone thought that about the Blind Sheik Rahman who

was the first WTC bomb mastermind. But the trials were held in NYC and they lasted for years, and none of the fears people had ever came to pass. Not to mention how much was learned from those trials. Too bad back then the media focused on Monica Lewinsky.

We CAN do these things, but only when we want to.

Besides, OBL could and should have been handed over to the International Court. He was responsible for bombings in other countries also, and did not kill only Americans. Frankly I think having a trial would show a lot of people who are not really convinced he's such a bad guy, just what he was responsible for. IT would also educate people on the folly of creating 'monsters' like this for expediency sake. Because we're still doing it.

[EFerrari]

53. Geezus, how fragile are we?

[otohara]

57. It's The Media

FOX viewers shoot people.

Death threats would be flying around if someone didn't like what was said.

Too many guns, too many nuts.

[EFerrari]

60. The world has always been a dangerous place. Always.

[myrna minx]

64. Tell that to the people who endured the crazies during Brown v Education.

I guess we shouldn't enforce policies like that today because it would be too difficult because of the "crazies with guns".

[hulka38]

58. +1

No shit.

[myrna minx]

61. No kidding. I guess laws are only for when everything is easy. n/t

[EFerrari]

65. This country is besotted with its own image of bin Laden

as if in a time warp. And I guess we haven't lost enough to that image. We need to lose a little more before we get it.

[hulka38]

66. Fear works really well on Dems also. n/t

[otohara]

67. Laws Are Broken Everyday

white collar criminals get away with all kinds of shit thanks to high priced attorneys and endless money.

Because our system is so fucking awesome.

[myrna minx]

72. So I guess we scrap the whole system because people break laws?

On edit - I'm out of here - this is just silly.

[otohara]

74. Is It Silly

that justice only prevails for those with money?

I'll tell you what was silly, me thinking I could get justice from the evil empire employer who fired me for being old and disabled.

I laughed until I cried.

[myrna minx]

75. I've very sorry for what you're going thorough - I agree that we have a

messed up justice system for those that are poor vs those that are wealthy. Unfortunately that's not the topic and the argument you've made in your OP.

[pipi_k]

69. It would be a fucking circus...

and it would likely bring out the very worst in a whole lot more people than now


PS...plus, where would it be held, and who would the jurors be?

Who would welcome a Bin Laden trial in their city or town? Yeah...right. Just like people love to see nuclear waste in their backyards...

Who would want to be a juror in that trial? Not I. Not knowing there are crazies running around in the world who wouldn't think twice about blowing away some law-abiding citizens just doing their civic duty.

[Bragi]

71. Yet another pro-assassination, anti rule of law thread

This is tedious. Or awful. And not DUs finest moment.

[pipi_k]

83. Okay, so...

where would the trial be held?

[dionysus]

111. go to your nearest street corner wearing a sandwich board complaining about how bin laden's human

rights were violated. then come back and let us know how it turned out.

[Renew Deal]

81. Should Bin Laden get a jury trial or a military trial? Should he be in jail in the US?

And Obama would be blamed no matter what he decided. Then there's the media.

[pipi_k]

82. Those questions...

and others are what I've been asking the past couple of days in other threads.

Nobody who thinks he should have been tried has bothered to answer them. I don't know why except that it must be easier to keep believing idealistic bullshit than to sit and actually consider what would be involved.

Very first issue is that OBL is like the human equivalent of nuclear waste. Whether people agree with nuclear power or not, the fact remains that nuclear waste exists and it has to be buried someplace. People are all in favor of burying the stuff.

Just not in their own backyards.

One thing I know for sure...I wouldn't want an OBL trial in my neighborhood. I'll bet others wouldn't either.

[coalition_unwilling]

85. As one of Obama's Dem predecessors said (or had a plaque saying, can't remember which):

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." (Harry Truman)

It is alleged that bin Laden violated criminal law so, of course, he was entitled to a criminal jury trial. Same as anyone accused of a capital crime is entitled to before being executed.

[Akoto]

89. I have to ask you ...

Where in the United States do you suppose you can find an untainted jury to sentence Osama bin Laden? There is not a person in our nation who doesn't know his name, and most equate it with images of hijacked airliners slamming into buildings.

[coalition_unwilling]

95. Juries do not 'sentence' anyone in the United States, that function

being reserved for judges. (Actually, in capital cases, I believe the USSC has ruled that juries must unanimously agree on the death penalty before a judge can impose the sentence, although I may have that ruling incorrect.)

You do realize you are saying OBL could not have received a 'fair trial' in the US, assuming he had been placed on trial? When someone cannot receive a fair trial, I hate to say it, the proper response is not to kill them without a trial.

The United States was able to find fair and impartial juries for Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirator Nichols, for Sheihk Rahman and for various other people accused of gruesome and notorious crimes.

And who says jurisdiction would necessarily be the United States'? OBL has been accused of many other crimes that precede 9-11 which did not involve the United States or her citizens.

[pipi_k]

97. I agree with the person you're replying to

It's inconceivable that OBL would receive a fair trial, either here, or in any other country.

And if someone can't receive a fair trial, what is it but a sham? A mockery of a trial.

Like I keep asking but never get an answer (not from you specifically)...what person in his or her right mind would want to be on a jury for OBL? Find him guilty, and look over your shoulder the rest of your life. Find him not guilty...the same thing.

The only way that wouldn't happen would be if every single aspect of the trial were secret...venue...judge...lawyer(s)...jury

And if that's the case, then how would anyone know for sure a trial had even taken place?

So Osama bin Laden...world's most hated man, gets a secret trial in an undisclosed location, pronounced guilty or not guilty by a secret jury of his peers, defended by unknown lawyers, and sentenced (because we know he would have to be) to death by an unknown judge, perhaps death by firing squad. How ironic that would be, but anyway...

Nothing but a big production, that's what it would be. A huge joke. He would be just as dead as he is now, only there would be a whole lot more drama involved.

[Akoto]

104. You pretty much summed up my point.

The solution wouldn't have been as easy as sending him to another country where he was wanted on crimes, because in the end, he's still most notorious for 9/11 and leading Al Qaeda. That would taint his trial in all but the most sympathetic of countries.

You're exactly correct that it would have been a show trial. He gets to rant on the stand, the MSM gets to yammer about it, some unfortunate folks probably get held as ransom for OBL's release, and OBL is inevitably executed anyhow.

[coalition_unwilling]

105. I'm sorry, truly sorry, that you have so little faith in such quaint and

obsolete concepts as 'due process of law,' 'presumption of innocence,' 'right to counsel,' and so on.

Oh, brave new world, that hath such creatures in it.

[Renew Deal]

94. Actually Bin Laden declared and waged war on the US

And got what he deserved.

[coalition_unwilling]

96. Aside from the logical absurdity of an individual declaring and waging war on a

nation-state, your post actually opens more cans of worms than I think you realize.

If Obama actually did 'declare war' as we normally construe the term, then the laws of war would apply, i would think. Can you say with certainty, bin Laden having declared and waged war upon the US, that we followed the laws of war?

Or are you invoking the "bin Laden exception" to the rule of law?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

[Renew Deal]

107. Take it up with Bin Laden

and Bush. Obama inherited this mess and acted appropriately. I'm sure you're upset Bin Laden is dead. It will be OK.

[Leopolds Ghost]

112. Quit being obtuse. You are calling people on DU terrorists

I posted a message on this subject several days ago, and the only one of two supportive replies I got was removed for some reason. Interesting.

[JoePhilly]

86. OBL said he would never be taken alive, and he was right.

So... let's speculate on what would have happened if we caught or killed OBL BEFORE Bush's Iraq Distraction. Now that would be interesting. All of this "what if we tried him today" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

After 9+ years. We dropped troops from helicopters. Into a dangerous place. They killed OBL. Gathered valuable intel, and extracted our troops safely.

I will not lose a minute sleep over it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. Anti-Muslim sentiment during such a trial would have been SO HIGH as to surely cause

heightened discrimination, racial/religious profiling, and violence agains Arabs.

[pipi_k]

98. I think so too....

There are too many really awful things that could happen to a lot of innocent people, who would become "collateral damage" in that whole brouhaha.

[Spider Jerusalem]

93. That isn't a good reason.

"A trial is too much trouble, we know he's guilty anyway, let's just kill him now and have done with it." If you're okay with that for Bin Laden, would you be for someone like Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer? Charles Manson (an even better comparison)? Either the rule of law means something or it doesn't.

[coalition_unwilling]

99. 'The rule of law,' I've sadly come to conclude, ain't what she

used to be.

Nowadays there are all kinds of exceptions, not the least of which is the 'Bin Laden exception.' noted by Glenn Grewnwald

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden