So they are now admitting that they executed an unarmed Bin Laden who was in custody at the time?

[LadyLeigh]

At least that is what I get from this article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?printable=true#ixzz1UNWM8ckR

I think it pretty simple:

Either one supports due process for Bin Laden, or one doesn't support due process. People (not specifically DUers, but anyone) who are fine with how this went over should probably examine whether they are truly fond of the basic principles of a democratic society, or whether they would find a system such as in Libya or Syria, where suspected criminals can be executed at someones whim, more preferable.

[Skittles]

1. aw FUCK Bin Laden

[coalition_unwilling]

54. aw, fuck due process of law - n/t

[jpak]

110. Did OBL give due process to the folks in the WTC on 9/11/01?

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

140. By your logic we should shoot all accused killers

without bothering with trials or any kind or due process?

Do killers ever give their victims due process? I think the answer is 'no'. Still, as a civil society we do provide them with fair trials.

Do you think we should stop doing that from now on? Maybe for serial killers, no trials? Just kill them all?

Where do we apply the law then? Who has a right to a fair trial?

Have things changed so much since 9/11 that we on the left, now agree with Bush?

Even Nazis were given fair trials.

When did Democrats accept the premise that due process is no longer part of our judicial process?

[jbnow]

219. The women they thought might have suicide vests on were not killed

They were covered by a seals body and moved away from where action that could kill them would be.
These guys were not indiscriminate killers at least.

Not sure why subject line says he was in custody already. He was not. If they thought the women likely had suicide vests they probably wisely figured the men were even more prepared to attack somehow as paranoid as they were (burning their trash etc). Especially since the place wasn't heavily guarded externally a best bet would be that they were personally prepared for a raid.

The source for this article says they planned to take him out. They site another source that that says the order was to take him into custody if he surrendered.
Maybe the source for article and team had decided the risk was too damn high even if he "surrendered". How would they know he wasn't unobtrusively rigged and prefer death to capture?

Nazis did get trials, those caught after the war away from the battlefield anyway.
But they weren't a fighting culture of suicide bombers and probably not still out to kill them.

How much of a chance do you feel they should have taken?
Ethics matter a lot but I am slow to judge here.

[joeglow3]

280. If they made multiple tapes confessing and proudly broadcast them world wide, then sure.

[sabrina 1]

319. So Bush was right then?

Why were we so angry him for destroying the Constitution? Did I miss something since then? The 'left' now supports Bush policies that we are above all laws? Every day I learn something new about the Party I thought opposed the dangerous slide into a lawless society he was taking this country on.

How about that oath everyone takes when they sign up for the military and/or become elected officials of the US Congress and the WH?

'defend and protect the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. I KNOW Bush thought it was quaint, you appear to think he was right?

[Hawkowl]

285. If they take credit for killing, then yes.

It is not as though Bin Laden was proclaiming his innocence. He was at the forefront of the jihad, i.e; Holy WAR. If he claimed innocence and persecution then yes, a trial.

[sabrina 1]

315. He denied being responsible for 9/11. The Bush gang produced

questionable material, tapes etc. that may or may not have been fake. That's why trials are good, you get to look at the evidence.

Are you saying we should forget the Constitution then, and just let our Government tell us when someone needs to be killed?

[wildbilln864]

93. yeah, don't throw the constitution in my face!

It's just a god damned piece of paper! :mad:

[Kahuna]

2. And? I don't really give a shit. nt

[FarLeftFist]

3. I do NOT support due process for Bin Laden.

[Exilednight]

50. Then we can no longer argue that we are a nation of laws and believe in human rights.

[ZombieHorde]

60. My

My_spacebar_is_broken,_so_I_am_using_underscores.

I_don't_think_we_ever_could_argue_"that we are a nation of laws and believe in human rights."_<--copy/paste

Slavery.

Race_camps.

Torture.

Various_CIA/military_events.

[Amonester]

121. Ain't that the case since January 19, 2001?

(The beginning of the end.)

[Exilednight]

125. So I should just give up fighting the fight for what is right? n/t

[Amonester]

137. No. Don't give up the fight.

But what is done is done. ('poor Osama' got himself in a lot of trouble at the wrong time) :crazy:

[coalition_unwilling]

56. 'Due process' is a meaningless phrase unless it applies to

everyone. So you're really saying you don't support due process for anyone when you say you don't support it for OBL.

[FarLeftFist]

72. Not everything is so black and white.

The OP said either you support due process for Bin Laden or don't. I don't.

[sabrina 1]

114. And that is the true test of our laws. And we failed it.

I don't recall seeing any exemptions in the Constitution for a fair trial. My copy doesn't say that everyone is entitled to a fair trial except for those we hate so much they don't deserve it.

The trial is NOT for OBL. It is for US.

But what's the point? Bush 'softened up' the American people to accept a lawless society. I spent eight years arguing with rightwingers over this very same thing.

I never thought it would have to be explained to Democrats.

But I've learned a lot, so that's something. I realize now, something I couldn't understand before, how a society devolves into lawlessness. Just scare them enough and they will do as OBL actually hoped for, give up their freedoms willingly and drop all pretense of 'democracy'.

[Exilednight]

127. Exactly right!

[FarLeftFist]

216. I don't see it as giving up any freedoms

Bin Laden was shot and killed in a night time raid on his compound in Pakistan. My freedoms are still intact.

[sabrina 1]

247. He was assassinated, and according to reports, unarmed

That violates international law which this country supposedly signed on to, in fact we helped those laws. What you or any other individual 'feels' is of zero importance. I'm sure lots of Germans felt their freedoms were intact also. So long as they supported their government and never needed due process. But if they had been wise they would not have felt so smug. They would have known that a government that does not respect the law for one group of people, will not respect it for anyone, when it suits them.

The laws are not there so that one individual can 'feel' good. They are there for the common good. To help contribute to a civil society, not to be selective as to when and to whom they should be applied.

I'm glad you feel your freedoms are intact.

I do not feel mine are. I feel better when we have elected officials who show respect for our laws. I feel all of us are more free and more safe when we have such leadership.

[Hosnon]

198. That's absurd. Not a single categorical ethical principle has ever withstood

scrutiny in all cases.

[coalition_unwilling]

226. Care to show us the "Osama bin Laden" exception to the

right to due process of the law? I would refer you to Immanuel Kant's notion of the universality of ethics, aka "The Categorical Imperative." In short, for any ethical principle that we wish valid for us to be truly valid, we must be willing to allow its validity to everyone else. Translated into terms even you can understand, if you wish to claim a right to due process for yourself, you must be willing to grant that the right to due process is universal and not parochial.

[Hosnon]

233. The Categorical Imperative is crap.

And, besides, you misstate the principle: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law".

(A): Were I to kill 3,000 innocent people in a single instance of global guerrilla warfare, I should be killed without due process. Boom - Categorical imperative intact and bin Laden is dead as happened.

(B) Must we really go into telling the truth re: hiding Jews from Nazis?

[Freddie Stubbs]

291. Bin Laden's estate is free to file a wrongful death lawsuit

[demwing]

186. BULLSHIT. Ethics are the MOST important

when they are the most difficult to honor.

Anyone can pray on a cold Sunday morning, but only a few pray on a hot Saturday night.

[7wo7rees]

246. Ditto.

Principles only mean something when it's difficult to adhere to them.

Consider OBL's innocence. There's an outside chance Cheney did 9/11. Just sayin'.

[Scurrilous]

4. ROFL

:thumbsdown:

[demwing]

292. Can you tell me what is the source of your avatar?

please?

[Iggo]

5. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

6. As soon as it's determined OBL was fond of a democratic society,

I 'might' hop on board. Until then, no.

[sabrina 1]

122. Well, I don't think most criminals care much about

rights or democracy. Should we forego all due process because criminals after all, don't deserve it?

I thought due process was not so much for the bad guys as it was to maintain a civil society AND to ensure of course, that the innocent are not wrongfully accused.

I am always on board with those who support due process, the Constitution and civil society.

But, we have been going down the road of ignoring all that since 9/11 and I guess now that Democrats are on that road too, the journey is complete.

How sad it all is. I had hoped that it was only far right lunatics who were willing to throw away the Constitution and once we had some sane people in office, we could begin to restore the rule of law.

HOw easy it is to support the Constitution when there is nothing to test that support.

9/11 and all the hateful propaganda from the right, the descent to the lowest common denominator, not justice, but revenge, has really exposed how fragile our democracy really was all along.

We have been tested and have spectacularly failed when put to the test sadly.

[babylonsister]

205. Can you just imagine what kind of trial this guy would have had,

and how it would have inspired those who supported him? Why do you think he wasn't given a burial ground but was tossed into the sea?
Get real.

[sabrina 1]

238. Yes, the same kind of trial the Nazis received. We cannot

allow bullies to run our system of justice. He could and should have been handed over to the Hague, where many other people who have killed far more people than he is accused of killing, are being tried on a relatively regular basis. This will always be viewed now with contempt in many parts of the world, and also with suspicion that either he was already dead and this was just a stunt, or they killed him rather than try him because they were afraid of what a trial might reveal.

There are many reasons why this was a bad idea, mostly though for me, it violates our laws and principles.

[anneboleyn]

248. Have you seen Judgement at Nuremberg? Talk about show trials!

Of course historians have argued this as well. Himmler, Hitler, Goring, Goebbels, etc. were all dead before any trial could take place.

[Rex]

7. Where you been sunshine? Obama gave the nod to assassinate

American citizens, no problemo, a long time ago! What is OBL and a potential war with a friendly nation compared to offing our fellow citizens!?

[bluestateguy]

8. I don't have time to worry about this right now

Too many other problems that demand our attention at home and internationally.

[Pisces]

9. I will let the Mother Teresa's worry about the morality.

[sabrina 1]

134. I guess I am one of those worrying about 'the morality'.

Although in the climate of the lawless society we now live in and where a majority of Americans have been frightened into ripping up the Constitution when convenient, and the rest don't dare speak up for the rule of law, especially when it applies to 'terrorists', maybe it's safer to go just along with the New America where the Constitution has become nothing but a relic of a long ago dream of a decent, humane and fair society.

The problem is, it's hard to do. After arguing over this very same thing for years, with Republicans, I find it hard to change my beliefs in accordance with the realization that my Party never did believe what I thought they believed after all.

At least it explains why they voted for the Patriot Act, (remember when we on the left thought that was a horrible violation of the Constituion?) and for the wrong, illegal, lied about War in Iraq. I used to think they were somehow forced to do those things, now it seems they actually had no real respect for the Constitution after all.

[sudopod]

274. Why are you the only person

who isn't a huge disappointment on this thread? :(

[demwing]

293. Wow, that was classy

Fuck me, but there are a lot of good people on this thread, I think you need to clarify or apologize

[sudopod]

294. Sorry, hadn't got to the bottom yet.

Attaboy to you too, I guess? O_o

[CJCRANE]

10. _

[Warpy]

11. He actually got due process for over a decade

as the Clinton team tracked down the source of terrorist funding and training to him, Stupid's administration largely ignored him once the Unocal pipeline was secured, and Obama took up where Clinton left off

Due process would have meant holding him, trying him, and then executing him. Had he been captured in the US, perhaps he would have gotten it instead of being dispatched quickly.

That's a good thing because holding him would have attracted every kill crazy hothead in the world.

While I'd love to have heard him sing about the Bush family's part in his rise to fame, I realize the cost could have been horrendous.

His quick death and burial at sea was probably the best policy, all things considered, denying them not only a live martyr to rally around but also a dead hero's shrine.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. You betray a very poor understanding of what 'due process' is when you

say he got it for 'over a decade'. Due Process is not something you 'get'. Among other things, Due Process encompasses the notion that we don't execute individuals extra-judicially, i.e., without benefit of a trial.

[Warpy]

99. The case against him was very carefully constructed by the Clinton team

and while Stupid dropped the ball, Obama didn't.

What you fail to understand is that due process according to US law on US soil would have been a nightmare.

Again, while I'd loved to hear him sing about the Bushes, it's not worth the type of terrorism this country would have endured while he was in custody.

[EFerrari]

102. Then he really did win, didn't he? n/t

[Amonester]

128. If, by winning, that means, bankrupting the US like he did the USSR

It seems he did, win.

And still is, even as dead as a dead fish.

[coalition_unwilling]

104. As I posted upthread, 'due process' does not mean much if it

is not applied universally. EFerrari has said it best on this thread and others on this topic: we observe due process not for (alleged) villains, but for ourselves and our own humanity.

[wildbilln864]

107. by the Clinton team?

but not for 9/11!

[sabrina 1]

178. Democracy is easy when it isn't tested.

I think this nation was up to the task of demonstrating to the world that we actually mean what we preach to everyone else.

He could have been handed over to an International court. So many of those killed on 9/11 were not Americans.

But, 9/11 changed everything! What a sad period in our history. We truly are not capable of upholding the principles we claim to uphold.

[aquart]

286. What does this have to do with democracy?

Democracy is majority rule. The majority in this country enjoy the idea of a dead bin Ladin. We vary on the ways we would have liked to kill him, me thinking dropping him from a very tall building would have been correct.

And he committed his crime in the United States. What does an international court have to do with it?

As for "democracy is easy when it isn't tested"? ARE YOU 12? Our democracy is tested every fucking minute and it is hard slogging work.

Stop sleeping in History class.

[sabrina 1]

300. Bestowing the powers of a king on a US president has a

great deal to do with Democracy. And when the Bush administration claimed the President had the right to be the judge, jury and executioner of anyone he chose to designate as an 'enemy combatant', or 'terrorist', the, and I have to now use this adjective, 'hypocritical' left was up in arms over it. And rightly so as they saw the danger of such powers in the hands of one man.

You have accepted the Bush administration's, the decider's claims, that OBL was responsible for 9/11 and because he said so, there is no need for due process, the decider gets to try, convict and execute him.

That is the first undemocratic and unconstitutional step in the process of becoming a country with no respect for the rule of law. They provided zero proof of those assertions even when asked for it not once, not anywhere. A trial may very well have produced that evidence, but no one I know has ever seen it. And we all know that governments don't lie! So who needs trials, right? :eyes:

And while you may have faith in your team not abusing these monarchical powers, there will be a Republican president some day. Maybe someone like Bachman. Do you trust HER with powers of judge, jury and executioner?

Your childish attempt to insult rather than debate, I will put down to your being unable to do so substantively. After all that is the usual fall back for those who cannot defend their positions.


How sad that the left is now vindicating George Bush. I guess they've decided he was right after all!

9/11 was America's test of what they really believed about Democracy, and they have failed that test, miserably.

[Selatius]

235. Then what are we as a country if we're willing to sacrifice our mores and values for simple safety?

Hell, we gave accused war criminals in the last world war the benefit of the doubt with jury trials, and that war cost the US over 400,000 people. We could've simply dispensed with the trials and executed them all for the sake of expediency.

[Hosnon]

199. Broadly, due process is nothing more than process that is due.

I think bin Laden got all the process he was due.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

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

[Hosnon]

234. As someone who studied due process, I suppose that's a compliment.

I wouldn't want to be on a knowledgeable person's ignore list.

[Mimosa]

252. Warpy, I applaud your common sense. *smile* n/t

[Little Star]

12. Not this crap again!!! unrec

[blogslut]

13. No

Read the article again.

[elleng]

14. 'Due Process' not relevant for enemy combattants.

[RC]

55. "enemy combattants" as you spell it

is a bu$h term used to evade the law, mostly the International Law and the Geneva Convention.

We need to grow past that.

[elleng]

108. Fine, why not grow past playing snarky teacher.

:thumbsdown:

[scarletwoman]

15. You're pretty late in getting your outrage up. These facts came out within the 1st week after

the OBL operation.

In any case, it's a done deal. In the face of all the other lawless behavior that's been perpetrated by our government for decades, the summary execution of Osama Bin Laden is neither the most shocking nor the most egregious example.

[EFerrari]

36. There's a new article out, long form in The New Yorker.

[scarletwoman]

46. I know that, I heard an interview w/ the author on NPR last week.

And I also remember that after all the initial spin about the OBL Compound raid died down, it came out that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot.

Yes, I understand that this new article offers lots of new detail, but the basic fact of the summary execution of an unarmed man remains.

I found it appalling then, and still do. Same as I find the entire G.W.O.T. appalling. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, drone attacks - and that's just recent history - all of it is appalling.

The murder of OBL is just one more marker on a long, long continuum of appalling violations of the Rule of Law.

As long as the Masters of War maintain their power in the world, they will do these things with impunity.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. True. Interested readers might want to read up on The Phoenix

Program in southeast Asia, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood CIA.

[FarPoint]

16. An eye for an eye I say.

I expected no less...and am pleased by the act.

[Drahthaardogs]

20. Absolutely!

I would have gone "Christmas Critters" on OBL!

[coalition_unwilling]

64. Welcome to my Ignore list - n/t

[FarPoint]

187. You are so silly...

why would I even care? I don't even know you...

[sabrina 1]

149. Ah, the Old Testament solution!

Screw the Constitution! :eyes:

[FarPoint]

189. It has nothing to do with the Constitution...

It's the reckoning I seek....and embrace.

[sabrina 1]

239. Like I said, the Old Testament kind of 'justice'.

And you don't even know if he actually was guilty. But who cares? Right? So long as you get your reckoning! :eyes:

[FarPoint]

250. Absolutely

I don't give a rats ass. ..let's not ignore the simple fact he admitted his crimes of 911 repeatedly... with pride.

[sabrina 1]

255. Sure, let's ignore the rule of law instead. I hope you are never portrayed

by a powerful government as an 'evil monster', especially a government that has no respect for the rule of law. I would at least hope if that happened to you that you get a chance to defend yourself.

I don't know whether he committed that crime or not. I know that's what we have been told. I know he denied it. Then we were told he admitted it. Being told something by the government doesn't mean it's true, does it? That's why the FF were so concerned about the future, that governments would abuse their powers. That is why they wrote the Constitution, insisted that 'everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty'. They were very wise. Here you are, proving that their fears for this country were absolutely justified.

We were also told Iraq had WMDs and that they were responsible for 9/11 and many Americans said 'hey if the government says so it must be true, let's go turn their country into glass'. No trial, no due process, just the word of the government.

Governments lie. It's not something new or unusual. They just do. And our system of checks and balances was created with that in mind. So that at least there was a way to ensure no government would have so much power that they could not be challenged.

And as a result of the Iraq lies by our government, over one million people were murdered with the blessing of 70% of the American people who appear to have lost all sense of reason and justice because of ONE terror attack.

How much will you be willing to give up if there is another one?

[LanternWaste]

295. I imagine that a thought process

"An eye for an eye I say..."

I imagine that a thought process like that is very easy and very simple, and allow quite a bit of satisfaction if not quite justice.

But, if it's as easy as a bumper sticker, I can readily understand it's popularity amongst those for whom in-depth analysis and justice are just too much trouble... :shrug:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

18. HAHAHAHHAHAH

[Cirque du So-What]

19. Someone alert OMG Bunny!

[A HERETIC I AM]

222. Oh shit, that's hilarious!

Funny .gif.

And BTW< I think you have one of the cleverest, funniest names on DU.

"Cirque du So-What"

love it.

[Enrique]

21. still too early to know what happened

i skimmed that article, there was nothing in it to make me think it was close to the real story.

[malaise]

22. So what's the new meme then

Obama gets no credit for finding and killing BIn Laden.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Wheel and come again...we're not buying that new ReTHUG meme!!

[CJCRANE]

23. What's your take on the Guantanamo detainees?

Should they be tried in Manhattan?

[gratuitous]

24. As this thread amply demonstrates

Patriotic ideals are far from reality for a lot of folks. Yeah, the Constitution, international treaties, and all that sort of thing. But we've been told for 10 years that Osama bin Laden was a really, really bad person, so considerations of due process, which are what we supposed to use as part of our superiority to lawless terrorists, can be jettisoned at whim. Hopefully, you will never be depicted as a really, really bad person, so your rights are probably safe at least for now.

We don't accord due process to people we don't like because they "deserve" them; we accord due process to people we don't like because that's our system of government. If you don't like it, there's always Somalia. I hear that due process is such a rare commodity there, you can shoot anyone for anything with complete impunity. I decline to trim my ideals to fit this year's fashion, and yes, Osama bin Laden deserved a fair trial, a chance to face his accusers, and be presented with the evidence against him in open court. I know that the government has tried for years to make me think he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm still interested in quaint notions like "evidence."

[mike_c]

30. agreed-- the responses in this thread tell us much about the demise of the U.S....

...and how easily we've turned our backs on the principles that it was founded upon. Protecting those principles was FAR more important that obtaining revenge on OBL, but even among democrats the majority seems willing to discard human rights at a moments notice.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

[Union Scribe]

230. Can you honestly say that people at any point in this country's history

would, by and large, have had a problem with U.S. forces killing someone responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans? When was this golden era of respect for all life and rights?

[mike_c]

308. that's a straw man....

We're not discussing all the OTHER times we've trampled on people's rights. As though those somehow make this one better?

More and more this sounds like an extrajudicial execution. One can argue all day long about whether OBL deserved that, but it's utterly beside the point. We CLAIM to answer to higher ideals than revenge at any cost. OBL deserved to confront his accusers and defend himself before the law no less than you do, or I. If it's OK to shred his rights, it's alright to shred ours, too, just as soon as someone in power decides it. This is one of the primary reasons that a standing army was anathema to the framers of the Constitution and to federalists and the states alike-- because a professional army gives a government the ability to do or take by force what it cannot do or take under the law, and the power to to thumb it's noses at the people.

That's WAY more important than OBL ever was.

[aquart]

287. Was that from Poor Richard's Almanac?

Even the musical 1776 showed a better grasp of the moral complexity in our founding.

[mike_c]

309. from Bartleby.com....

NUMBER: 3929
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
QUOTATION: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 1
ATTRIBUTION: Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

Note 1.
This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin’s “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.

I understand it is widely misquoted, too. Apparently the original phrasing has become blurred with all the misquotes to the point that the original is arguable. The sense is the same, of course.

[JI7]

32. he admitted guilt plus called on attacks to other innocents around the world

he could have turned himself in but he didn't. and there was enough reason to consider him a big enough threat to take him out when they did.

[EFerrari]

35. Criminality is not a reason to suspend the rule of law. n/t

[pintobean]

42. Exactly, what rules of law apply?

[EFerrari]

71. You mean beside the one against assassination?

[pintobean]

97. Yes, since that one doesn't apply.

[EFerrari]

100. Of course it does. Even if you construe this as a battle in a war

you don't execute unarmed individuals if you can capture them.

All of a sudden DU likes assassination. What a trip.

[pintobean]

109. The rules of war don't apply either.

We're not fighting a nation or an army. There are no battles for territory. OBL is one less man standing. That's a rule of survival. Whine about it all you want. It won't change.

[EFerrari]

115. Wrong. But good job repeating the argument put out by BushCo.

[pintobean]

118. lame

[EFerrari]

124. True.

[sad sally]

155. Being a US war criminal means never having to admit whatever atrocities

you want to inflict on your enemy as long as you deny they are an "army" and never "declare" war on them.

As for justice - we don't need no stinking justice system when assassination is available.

[pintobean]

164. So, President Obama is a war criminal?

[EFerrari]

188. The other day I heard one of those Tea Party House members

say that our future is spreading American Exceptionalism all over the world. He would have been at home in this thread.

[ozone_man]

131. Unbelievable that anyone can think that

assassination is OK. Not at DU anyway.

[Mnemosyne]

213. Seriously, Beth, is this DU?

The viciousness of many posters these days is beyond disturbing. :hi::hug:

[Desertrose]

227. Been asking this question for awhile now.

"The viciousness of many posters these days is beyond disturbing."

I second that!

[Mnemosyne]

262. I welcomed someone to Du yesterday and asked if his comment was sarcasm,

and he told me to shove my fruit basket! Huh? I even said that if I was misunderstanding to excuse my post, trying to be nice.

:hi:

[Desertrose]

266. Seems as though everyone is angry

and lashing out...I do understand that, I do. But we will never get out of this mess that way.

A little understanding, compassion and taking a lot of deep breaths will most likely serve us better than constantly reacting from fear & anger.


:hi:

[Mnemosyne]

277. I understand it too, DR, and you are so right. Unfortunately, the fear is only

beginning to rise in this country and sadly it will get much worse, before it gets better. Those that have had blinders on are slowly coming to and the anger and fear are only beginning to swell.

Maybe we could buy them all Cokes and teach them to sing! :)

:hi::hug:

[EFerrari]

296. That's what it says in the header.

lol

I know people feel very strongly about Bin Laden, so it's a challenge I guess to balance that against the stuff we say we value.

[Mnemosyne]

306. Hypocrisy runs rampant these days.

Been too exhausted to fight it much lately. My cape is at the cleaners anyway. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

307. LOL

:)

[Mnemosyne]

311. Well, I didn't think it would be needed for awhile. n/t

[sabrina 1]

151. You never heard of the US Constitution?

The Geneva Conventions?

[Kahuna]

40. Sympathy for the Devil. How quaint. nt

[wildbilln864]

101. very well said! thank you. eom!

[sabrina 1]

152. Thank you.

This thread makes me so sad ... but posts like yours give me hope.

[Raine]

25. Oh boo hoo I don't give a shit

I'm glad he's dead. :thumbsup: It's more than the rethugs ever did, Bush couldn't even find the sucker.

[coalition_unwilling]

65. Welcome to my Ignore list - n/t

[pintobean]

113. That's all it takes?

Wow. I bet this place appears pretty small to you.

[Union Scribe]

174. Add me, too.

Because fuck that dead prick. I'm STILL happy that he's STILL dead.

[Raine]

237. HURRAY & THANKS!!! Of course I know you can't see this, DUH!

:silly: WELCOME TO MINE TOO, turn about!!!! FOOL!!!

[Piperay]

240. Hahahaha now YOU'RE on everyone's ignore list

just because you can't handle a differing opinion. Go ahead shut out everyone you don't agree with soon you'll have no one to talk to. While you'er at it ADD ME TOO cause you're sure the hell on mine!

[TBF]

26. Is due process ordinarily granted to non US citizens?

Not that I believe the 911 charade, but your point is ludicrous on many levels. Enjoy your stay ....

[EFerrari]

33. Due process is a human right, not a right of citizenship

as BushCo argued.

[coalition_unwilling]

66. Due Process is both a universal human right and a right of U.S. citizenship, as

articulated in the oft-vaunted (during the debt ceiling debate) 14th Amendment.

[EFerrari]

78. You're right, I put that badly. It was BushCo's morally bankrupt argument

that only citizens are entitled to due process. An argument which was harshly criticized here once upon a time.

[coalition_unwilling]

85. Oh yes. The argument was criticized during the Bush Junta by

many in the "MPWoW" (My President, Right or Wrong) cohort. Folks who make me ashamed I ever called myself a Democrat.

[sabrina 1]

156. Yes, we are signatories to the Geneva Conventions

But that was when the world decided that acting like the monsters who had just been defeated was not the way to ensure it would not happen again. And to think how much was contributed to those laws by the US. We were an example to the world at least as far as wanting to create civil societies and doing something about it.

Now? How sad. It didn't last long before we became what we said we despised.

To quote Senator Byrd when he saw the direction Bush was taking this country in:

I weep for my country

[coalition_unwilling]

231. The Geneva Conventions are so 20th Century :) - n/t

[pintobean]

27. I'm waiting for the movie to come out

to find out what really happened.

[Richardo]

28. ...and not a single fuck was given throughout the land.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[tritsofme]

29. He can complain in hell. nt

[Bragi]

31. The DU consensus so far seems clear, sadly so

Most people in this thread don't seem to care much about due process, and are proud to proclaim their disdain for the rule of law.

I wish I was surprised. Fortunately, there is a minority who hang out here who do care, and who make the place worthwhile.

[EFerrari]

34. DU only cares about due process under Republican presidents. n/t

[pipi_k]

39. "Due process" would have been

nothing but a mockery of our judicial system.

He admitted being behind the attacks. He called for more attacks.


Where on earth would there be found a jury objective enough to ignore those facts...or ignorant of the events...in the jungles of the Amazon?

The whole thing would be nothing more than going through the motions in order to make it look like something fine and noble had happened.

Does anyone here sitting on his/her high horse actually BELIEVE he'd have been found not guilty? Really? To find him not guilty would have been insanity. Yeah...let him go so he can plan more attacks.

The only option would be guilty. And if that's the only option, a trial is nothing but bullshit.

[EFerrari]

41. Well then why bother with a justice system since people like you

are available to pronounce judgment? We don't have due process for the innocent uncontroversial ones; we have it precisely so hated criminals like bin Laden are treated with the human dignity they denied their victims. We don't do it for them, we do it for us, to show we are different than criminals who kill in cold blood. Or, that was the theory anyway.

[pipi_k]

43. I didn't "pronounce judgement"

He admitted his acts.

Do you really and actually believe any jury in the world would have found him not guilty?

Really???


Also...there's the small matter of where the "trial" would be held.

in some secret location, I'm thinking. Because what country in its right mind would want said trial within its borders? Jury... how does one find a jury objective enough to listen to evidence and pronounce him not guilty if he's already admitted his involvement?

Everything about it would have to be secret, IMO.


Is that "Due process"? The right to a (speedy and) public trial?

If a person can't have every single protection of our Constitution, then it's bullshit. A joke. Nothing but a big show to make us look good.

[EFerrari]

171. Why is it that mass murders are tried all the time now in Latin America

people who have kill far far many more people, who even have networks on the ground there, unlike bin Laden here?

Are the people of Guatemala, Chile, Argentina and Colombia just much more brave than we are or what?

[sabrina 1]

192. He could have been handed over to an International Court.

Many of the victims of 9/11 were not Americans.

You are not making a very good argument for suspending the Constitution or International law.

Bad guys responsible for far more murders are tried all the time at the Hague.

See what is happening in many South American countries to war criminals who killed and tortured many more people than Bin Laden is accused of doing. And even worse, many of them still have supporters in those countries.

Is the US so weak now, it cannot even do what other far less powerful countries can do?

You'd be surprised, once you leave the US, how other Democracies manage to find juries and courts to try accused mass killers.

What you are saying is that this country has lost its ability to abide by its own laws.

Did you feel this way when Bush was president? Airc, we railed against him daily when he violated our laws and were committed to restoring the rule of law and worked hard to elect a government that would do that.

What happened? Is the 'left' now in agreement with George Bush? Was he right after all, that suspension of the Constitution is acceptable because of one terror attack?

Sorry, I remember the Bush years and the systematic destruction of the Constitution and how I felt about it then. I haven't changed my mind. But it is more than disturbing to see people here cheering for the collapse of our system of laws.

[Mnemosyne]

215. Guess you missed this:

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US


If he was so proud, why did he deny it? Why would he?

[JI7]

47. if he turned himself in he would have gotten a trial

[pipi_k]

51. Probably...although

I still wouldn't call it a trial as much as a "trial".

I don't believe there could have been any verdict other than guilty...

[EFerrari]

73. Isreal managed to capture and try criminals whose crimes were far worse

than bin Laden's. And it only made them more respected in the world.

[JI7]

139. are you talking about those related to the holocaust ?

[EFerrari]

180. Yes, and they aren't the only ones.

Since Bush lost our grip on Latin America and democracy is breaking out all over the region, dictators and their thugs are being tried there. Much more dangerous than Bin Laden because their sympathizers are still in the population. Men who were responsible for the disappearance, torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of people. Bin Laden is an amateur compared to those guys.

But we can't do that and re-enforce our democratic values? What is the matter with us, exactly, that we can't do as much as a small Latin American country with a history of repressive dictatorships?

[JI7]

191. Bin Laden was not a leader of a nation , but he has followers also

and i said, if Bin Laden turned himself in he would have had a trial.

and anyways having him in custody would probably have meant people committing terrorism and hostage situations with demands to release him.

and there are special cases where it can be ok not to go by the usual ways.

[EFerrari]

195. Those Latin American countries who are prosecuting mass murderers

who have a following on the ground put us to shame.

[JI7]

197. well, i wont feel bad if they die either

[EFerrari]

208. Will you feel bad if your justice system tanks?

Because it isn't about Bin Laden, it's about us.

[JI7]

211. i'm not worried about that happening

[sabrina 1]

243. You should, because it has. And the assassinations

without trials are proof of that. Bush scared us when he began the destruction of our judicial system and we tried to stop him. But sadly, what he started has only continued under this administration and we now have people on the left, who would not tolerate it from Bush, claiming it's okay.

It's ironic that you support these assassinations without any due process and then say you are not worried about the collapse of our system of justice. And sad.

[Demonaut]

305. sorry Sabrina, your heart's in the right place but that guy was a pos, i wouldnt shed a tear

for Hitler either, or stalin, pol pot etc
I believe in karma...it got him

[sabrina 1]

316. But it isn't really about him, Demonaut,

it is about us, who we are ... :-)

[Demonaut]

321. the world needs more of you but until then someone has to fill the gap

:toast:

[sabrina 1]

323. That is a nice thing for you to say ~

:blush:

But I haven't been on the winning side, well, ever it seems! But, still, I just can't join the other side :-)

[11 Bravo]

53. OK! You win! You are the most righteous lefty dude on the planet! But ...

OBL not only admitted his guilt, there is videotape of him laughing while he watched sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, mothers, and fathers, leap to their deaths to avoid an inferno that he caused. I sometimes try to imagine what their last 10 seconds or so were like.
That tends to mitigate any concerns I might have over the methods employed by Seal Team 6 when they double tapped his mangy ass.

[coalition_unwilling]

74. Welcome to my Ignore list - n/t

[11 Bravo]

86. Oh, no! Anything but that!

However, I will try to carry on.
(And if you have any DU friends, perhaps one of them can clue you that there is nothing lamer than an "I ignore you" thread.)
It's that whole "mind over matter" thing. We don't mind, and you certainly don't matter.

[coalition_unwilling]

80. My modest proposal is that whenever an Executive claims someone

has committed a capital offense, we dispense entirely with the whole trial thing and proceed directly to execution merely upon the claim of the Executive. It is so much more efficient and cost-effective that way. :sarcasm:

[dionysus]

126. lol, you're the wind beneath our wings...

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

166. I know most people don't agree with me on this one. That's all right. n/t

[JVS]

258. I agree with you.

[dana_b]

297. I agree with you too

if that is any consolation.

[sabrina 1]

312. I agree with you!

:-)

[11 Bravo]

269. Yeah, sort of like a vulture fart.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

81. Project much?

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. Neeee-ope

Smooches, though. Crusade away, your Holiness.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

87. You really don't understand that there are people

who value the law and the process for itself, do you?

That's pretty damn sad.

[dionysus]

150. .

:spray:


:thumbsup:

[hulka38]

90. Right, and the founding fathers did their founding father thing

to fuel their ego trip and to feel superior too.

[joshcryer]

92. It's not really that, being noble isn't hard, it's being consistent that's difficult.

And typically anyone who bashes US foreign policy while at the same time identifying or sympathizing with totalitarian policies of more unsavory countries and groups is not a consistent position.

[dionysus]

169. are you saying supporting ghadaffi and being mad that bin laden got smoked is an issue?

;)

[EFerrari]

175. You people have to contort yourselves into pretzels to rationalize

attacking the rule of law and accountable government, which with democracy, are the fundamentals of civil society. You are hilarious and sad at the same time.

[joshcryer]

214. Kinda, I mean, there's an example where the international rule of law was clearly broken...

...but somehow it's "wrong" to enforce the law as it was laid down by the United Nations Security Council.

So the ICC is fine when it wants to process Bin Laden and we are evil for not handing him over to them, but we're horrible for helping people who want to hand over their tyrant to the ICC.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[coalition_unwilling]

69. I almost left DU over the issue, were it not for posts by you,

Gratuitous, EFerrari, and others to remind me why this place still merits time and attention. My Ignore list grew exponentially during the aftermath, as the realpolitikers (might makes right) and bloodlusters (an eye for an eye) made themselves obvious.

[dionysus]

170. you almost left DU cause an admitted mass murdering terrorist got shot in the face?

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

259. No, because he was most likely sickened, as I and other Democrats

are to see the attempt to justify the destruction of the Constitution to defend any act no matter how illegal committed by this government.


So Bush was right after all? Do we owe him an apology for slamming him when even talked about extra-judicial assassinations? Why were we so upset with him? Can you remind me again?

[Hosnon]

203. He was given due process, in my opinion.

The process he was due did not include arrest, trial, etc.

[Crabby Appleton]

37. I completely support my President's handling of this matter. nt

[whistler162]

38. And the sources for this story?

[Baby Bear]

44. I Would Have Liked to Have Seen Bin Laden Taken Alive

But it was a risky mission and they had some bad luck.

[autorank]

141. Me to, presuming he was..

[saras]

45. Well, as usual for the New Yorker, it's excellently written, and quite accurate

[edhopper]

48. WTC was an act of war

not a criminal act. He was killed in a military operation in that war.
Fuck him.

[cbc5g]

61. So was Pearl Harbor

I guess you are okay with detaining Japanese Americans in camps, or maybe if you were in power, you would have assassinated Hirohito and other leaders in Japan without respecting international law. Interesting. I guess we should be nuking civilians in Afghanistan to?

[RC]

63. No, 9/11 was not an act of war.

No country attacked us. This was an act of vandalism with the help of the last Administration, because they needed another Pearl Harbor to get their war on.

[cayanne]

49. I'm glad he's dead. I'm also glad there was't a trial

and all the uprising and the martyrdom that would follow it. Obama was right to assassinate him, harsh as it might sound.

[pipi_k]

52. Uprising and martyrdom is right...

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think otherwise.

More deaths of innocent people just to ensure that OBL got what would have amounted to a mock trial.

[cbc5g]

57. His murder is a war crime

A just U.S. would have sent him to be tried at The Hague. Worse killers in history have been sent there. Just because he is our boogeyman and bad guy doesn't give us the right to murder an unarmed man without trial.

The response here is telling of the America we are becoming. If we demand a tyrannical police state, we will get it. If we demand breaking the rule of law we will get it.

And the sick part?

These people here would be complaining about the murder of Bin Ladin if it were a Republican in office. You all need to quit calling yourself democrats, because if you are okay with murdering unarmed people without trial, you are a nazi, not a democrat.

"But but, he admitted it!!" Nevermind the fact that the FBI's own website claimed he was the alleged mastermind, that it wasn't truly proven. Nevermind the fact that he only admitted it in one video (I think maybe an audio to) that were certified as fake by independent analysts.

But lets say he is 100% guilty no doubt. Then a trial wouldn't be difficult would it? And it would prove to the world that we are a bastion of human rights and just law. There is no reason to murder an unarmed person without trial. Or we can say goodbye to human rights and expect worse from a Republican administration if this is the best we have to offer.

It's utterly shameful the majority here throw away their ideals and values because our side is in power. I don't want to hear your whining when Republicans do worse when they are back in. You're basically giving a blank check to a powerful government to assassinate people overseas with no due process and no respect to international law. If you can't see how dangerous that is, you don't know history. At least most of us here are against the drone strikes, that's a start towards the right path.

[RC]

67. I agree

We as a nation as a whole, are becoming as sick as the fringe paranoid Right.

[scarletwoman]

75. A just U.S. would be a signatory to the ICC, however we are not.

Which means, I think, that we have no legal mechanism in place for turning someone over to the Hague.

I agree that's what *should* have been done.

[coalition_unwilling]

82. Bravo! What was amusing to me was watching a sizable cohort

at DU throw Chomsky, Michael Moore and Glenn Greenwald under the proverbial bus, all in the name of getting their war on and just because, as one poster put it, some folks just 'need a killin'

[blue neen]

88. So, if someone doesn't agree with you on this issue, they are a "nazi".

Right. So, please tell us again about ideals and values.

[TheKentuckian]

94. This is 100% on it. What are these people talking about? If true this is a war crime.

Field execution of a captive???

A horrible precedent and beyond granted authority. In fact contrary to it.

This would be disturbing as I stated at the time. The response even here says our values have been abandoned and all but lost. Sad and frightening.

[pipi_k]

96. Actually I would have felt exactly the same

if this had happened under Bush.

I would have counted it as the ONE worthwhile accomplishment of his entire 8 pathetic years in the WH.


Whether or not OBL actually did what he's accused of wouldn't matter in the end if the US government really wanted him dead.

All the "fair trial" bullshit wouldn't matter if the US government wanted him dead.

If the US government wanted him dead, it would do whatever it took to make sure that happened. And it did.


So where is the "honor" in holding a mock trial if the outcome of it was predetermined?

[Arkana]

106. If you honestly believe that he would have allowed himself to be taken alive

or that his trial would have been anything more than a farce and a stage for him to spew anti-Western bullshit then you are delusional.

[EFerrari]

111. Um, he was unarmed. So we know he could have been taken alive.

There were no booby traps, his security was out of the way.

And as far as show trials go, I didn't know Western jurisprudence was so fragile that it can't handle a few rants by an aging, has-been fanatic.

Edit

[JI7]

200. if he was alive he might have yelled out to someone to blow up the place

[hack89]

271. In an age of sucide bombers how do you determine "unarmed"?

in a split second without endangering your self?

[wildbilln864]

120. well said cbg5c! Thank you. eom.

[dionysus]

129. ROFL

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Union Scribe]

179. Get over it, we are not a just society

and this time it worked out for the better.

P.s. Fuck that dead prick!

[JI7]

194. you know it's not just theUnited States and Americans who consider Bin Laden

a bad guy who killed their innoncents. there are people around the world who have been killed because of him. if other nations had the ability to kill him they would have done it also.

[Kaleko]

298. Great post, cbc5g!

Thank you for spelling out some of what needs to be said in rebuttal of the stunning gullibility displayed in this thread.
And by gullibility I'm referring to the myth that OBL was the mastermind orchestrating all of the events on 9/11.

Jeezus, what does it take for people to start seeing what is right in front of their eyes?

[sabrina 1]

317. Excellent post, cbc5g n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

58. Extra-judicial executions are as American as cherry pie. See the

Phoenix Program (ca. 1965-74).

[blueamy66]

70. too bad we didn't take out the entire country

at the same time

let's get it over with for cripe's sake

How many more highly trained US military people (heroes) do we need to see die?

[EFerrari]

89. In Pakistan? I wouldn't worry. Not too many of our people there

the killing is mostly by remote control, remember?

[Proles]

76. I believed he was executed on the spot

without warning, and without resisting.

But uh... really now, who cares? In the end, it's one guy, and I think getting rid of him ASAP was a whole lot better than dragging out his prison time and potential trial and execution in the news.

I mean, the trial would be a joke at best -- of course he'd be found guilty.

[hobbit709]

77. TPTB didn't want him alive.

Too much chance of him revealing something they didn't want us to know.

[zappaman]

84. "TPTB didn't want him alive."

Neither did I.
And if my friend from high school who was killed in the WTC were still alive, he wouldn't have either.

[pipi_k]

103. That's what I think too...

There are...or probably were...plenty of people out there who know/knew things our government would not want us to know.

Any "trial" afforded to such persons would have been shams.


But hey...what would that matter as long as we...the US...get to believe we did the "right thing"...

Oh, look at US!!!! Look how good and moral and noble we are!!!

Fuck that shit.


I believe that even if he had been given a "trial" he would have ended up just as dead.

[dionysus]

159. right. the fact he was a mass murderer has nothing at all to do with it.

[hobbit709]

260. If mass murderer was the only criterion, why are Rumsfeld et al still walking around?

I said back in 2002 that they didn't want him alive because he knew too much.

[Ikonoklast]

79. He took credit for an act of war against this nation.

He got what was due him.

He is due the exact same due process as any other person who wages war against this country, to be rudely deprived of his life.

If you wage asymmetric warfare against a sovereign nation, you get to die by the same rules that you willfully ignore.

[joshcryer]

91. Welcome back!

I remember you!

[SidDithers]

145. +1...nt

Sid

[Yavin4]

95. Wanted Criminals Are Gunned Down ALL of the Time Right Here in the USA

It goes unnoticed and unreported. If OBL was truly concerned about his constitutional rights, he should have turned himself in.

[Exilednight]

98. I live in NYC and rarely hear of criminals being "gunned down ALL the time". n/t

[Yavin4]

144. Like I Said, Unnoticed and Unreported

Do you really think that the news will cover it?

[Exilednight]

162. Yes, they would cover it. Even in NYC, the 24 hour nes channel gets stale due to the lack of

local news. Police shootouts are huge news events in NYC. I've never lived in a place where they actually put snatch, grab and run muggings on video loop, like they do here.

[Arkana]

105. I'm not going to lose any sleep over a dead terrorist

who massacred 3,000 Americans with passenger jets.

[EFerrari]

116. You shouldn't. But what's happened to our DoJ should keep

anyone with functioning frontal lobes up at night.

[NICO9000]

112. Some people just need killin'

And UBL was definitely one of 'em. I shed no tears for that POS.

[Patriot 76]

119. That poor mass murdering, piece of shit terrorist.

:puke:

[pipi_k]

123. So anyway, I'm assuming...

that anyone frantic with concern over poor OBL not even getting a trial would have welcomed the whole thing had it been held in their own town or city, is that right?

Because if it weren't held in a secret location, then the place would have been known worldwide.

OMG...the trial of the Century!!!

Hordes of media types. Protesters. Gawkers. And maybe a few of his little terrorist supporters thrown in.

Lots of inconvenience. Chaos, maybe even rioting.


All right in your town.

Those of you who think he got a raw deal, or that the US did wrong by avoiding all of that...your safety and/or the safety of your friends and family would have meant nothing?

Well...OK for you.

But you don't have the right to inflict that shit on others.

So...in order for that not to happen, it would all have to be secret. And...if it were secret...how would anyone know whether or not he had gotten a "fair" trial?


PS...although I suppose there is a third option...NIMBY. Truth, justice, and the American Way. Just not in my backyard. Let someone else deal with it. :eyes:

[Exilednight]

130. It probably would of been held in my city, and I wouldn't of cared. n/t

[pipi_k]

135. Well, see, that's sort of my point...

Either people will care and scream bloody murder over it...

Or they won't care even though it's possible that other people could have been hurt, or even killed, as a result. Riots, protests, maybe even terror attacks by his supporters trying to free him...or make him a martyr.

I suspect that our government probably wanted him dead under any circumstances anyway, but it probably did what it could to avoid a huge event that could have turned very tragic.

[Exilednight]

160. Either we believe in the rule of law, or we don't. This is one of things where there is no gray.

[pipi_k]

167. I think I'm not making myself clear...

There is no "rule of law" to be had if, for some reason, our government wanted OBL dead.

Yes, we should all have a fair trial.

But what is the point when the outcome was (IMO) more than 99% in favor of his being convicted?

It's not even a trial, never mind a "fair" one. Just a big show to make us all feel like well, we did our best.

Did our best? Best at what? Putting on a show for the world? So we could pretend we were fair and just and noble, when underneath it all many people would just as soon have shot him themselves...

What is the point of a sham trial, exactly?

[anneboleyn]

245. As in Judgement at Nuremberg -- brilliant film.

[Robb]

132. Perhaps a question asked too late, but regardless:

...Where did you get "in custody" from the New Yorker article? Did I miss a sentence? :shrug:

[dionysus]

172. he was in a back room with the SEALS, who were giving him smokes, coffee, and doughnuts... when

suddenly, they murdered him in cold blood. evil bastards.

[LadyLeigh]

264. It appeared to me in the article that

all "bad guys with guns" had been shot dead, the building was secured, combat operations had concluded.

[Robb]

275. That's quite a walkback from "in custody."

[LadyLeigh]

281. What I get from the article is

that in that particular situation there was no ongoing combat activity, he was unarmed, posed no threat, had no means to escape whatsoever,
no means to defend himself, no means to really do anything else than stand there and wait what is done with him, the chance of outside assistance arriving was zero and the soldiers who were there felt that there was no imminent pressure whatsoever to make a decision as to what to do with him.

How is that not effectively "in custody" in any way other than some clever legalisms that a person might come up with? :shrug:

How does it make a difference that he was not in a prison cell or something?

[zappaman]

282. guess you read the article differently n/t

[Robb]

288. In the event you're serious

...you're describing a state -- e.g., "he's got no chance" -- that realistically existed the moment the teams boarded helicopters with his picture in their pocket.

You're conflating a use of force argument with a "clever legalism." By that logic it was unfair for the Sumerians to use horses.

[LadyLeigh]

320. I don't think I follow you.

So do you think it would have been a different matter if, say, Bin Laden was in Guantanamo at the time?

[Robb]

324. Words mean things.

Good luck.

[wildbilln864]

133. UBL said he had nothing to do with the attacks at the WTCs...

for those who don't know:
"Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands."
more...

if he'd been taken alive, maybe we'd found out who actually was involved and planned 9/11.

[pipi_k]

138. I suspect you could be right

I mean, we'll probably never know the truth, if there's a different "truth" than what we've been told...

In which case, any "trial" he got would have been purely for the sake of appearances. And he would have to be found guilty and executed anyway.

I'm really having trouble understanding how a sham trial...a complete mockery of our judicial system... would have been any better than just shooting him outright.

[Richardo]

154. Because criminals never lie about their guilt.

That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this site.

[JI7]

206. that was a week after the attacks, he later admitted to it

[wildbilln864]

265. no he didn't!

an imposter was shown on fuzzy video. maybe that's what you're referring to?

[Vattel]

136. SCOTUS ruled in the Hamdan case that Common Article 3

of the Geneva Conventions applies to our war against al Qaeda. Common Article 3 clearly and unambiguously prohibits executions carried out without judicial proceedings. If we knew that OBL was unarmed and could be apprehended without killing him, but we killed him anyway, then we executed him without judicial proceedings and so violated the Geneva Conventions. I hope that most DUers believe that we should adhere to the Geneva Conventions, but this thread makes me wonder whether that's so.

[EFerrari]

184. It's creepy for a liberal site to have so many people

cheering on assassination.

[coalition_unwilling]

232. Extra-judicial executions are as American as cherry pie. - n/t

[sabrina 1]

318. Yes, it is, what happened to the 'left' that went wild

when Bush claimed this authority? Am I dreaming or would it have been hard to find anyone on the left cheering on extra-judicial assassinations?

[hack89]

272. Since we didn't know he was unarmed, so what? nt

[SidDithers]

143. Poor, poor Osama...

:nopity:

Whatever he got, he deserved.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

183. The same will be said

of your fate I'm sure.

[meow mix]

204. and of yours.. and of mine. good thing we arent baby killers

i would hope.

[wizstars]

146. AFAIAC, bin Laden GOT all the due process to which he was entitled

He was charged, tried, convicted, sentence was carried out, case closed.

No, he didn't get a day in court, or to put on his best defense, but justice was done, I do not care about the details beyond that. He can appeal to Allah, if he's unhappy with the outcome. I can wait for Allah's verdict.....

[The Straight Story]

147. Was he a US citizen and subject to our laws? (nt)

[sabrina 1]

158. We are subject to our own laws and to International Law.

It isn't about him, is it? It's about us, who we are. And now we know! Sadly he was correct. He won.

[golk75]

148. Bin Laden

It was the best choice to execute him.

[Ohio Joe]

153. Fuck OBL, I'm still glad he is dead

Nothing in the article says he was in custody. It does say he would have been taken if he surrendered right away... He did not and the marine did the correct thing and killed him. I'm perfectly fine with that.

[spanone]

157. is that what you get from the article? of course you do. i think it pretty simple too.

[madokie]

161. I'm more inclined to believe the story is bullshit

I find it hard to believe that they killed him in cold blood. So I call bullshit on this story

[EFerrari]

168. Except it's in line with all the reporting that came out at the time.

The idea that they were there to kill him, not capture him, wasn't made up in this story.

[Nye Bevan]

163. Question for the "who gives a shit?" crowd:

How many people does a murderer need to kill before they are no longer entitled to due process, and should simply be summarily executed?

10?

100?

3000?

What's the threshold?

[whatchamacallit]

165. I'm one of those people who believes the government lied about 9/11

That makes me "a crazy" around here. I dunno, maybe I am... I have to say when I see folks so desperately invested in the government's word, that summary execution of a suspect (yes a suspect) is justice, I've got to wonder about the reasoning abilities of "the sane"...

[okieinpain]

173. lol, now i guess you want president obama and the seal team

arrested for violating bin laden rights.

[Nye Bevan]

177. Absolutely not, because Bin Laden was really, really bad.

And if anyone had summarily shot dead Timothy McVeigh, they would have been hailed as a hero for killing another really bad man and for saving the time and cost of a trial.

[The Hitman]

176. No due process in war

[EFerrari]

181. Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?

[Hosnon]

201. Are you suggesting that the Geneva Conventions require soldiers in war to forego killing

those who are trying to kill them and - capture them, afford them defense counsel, allow a discovery period, and put them on trial?

[EFerrari]

207. It's a violation of Geneva to summarily execute someone

when they are unarmed and subject to capture, yes.

Seriously, what a waste of time this thread is.

[Hosnon]

210. That wasn't my question but I suppose we've set some outer limits.

But you assume bin Laden was both unarmed and subject to capture. Sure, that may be something that would be left to the determination of a finder-of-fact in a regular, domestic court of law, but I glean from your response that you don't necessarily think he was entitled to full U.S.-citizen-style due process.

There's a chasm of important distinctions between summarily executing an unarmed and capturable domestic murder suspect, and a military belligerent.

ETA: And, by the way, this sub-thread is generalized to "war". Your response was regarding that topic, not bin Laden specifically.

[Confusious]

221. They have to submit to being captured

armed or unamed.

The onerous was on him to make sure that the soldiers knew he was surrendering.

he did not, the soldiers had every right to shoot to kill.

case closed.

[BzaDem]

223. What is a waste of time is having to keep refute the nonsense that the Geneva conventions prohibited

any action that occurred on that night.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the laws of war (and the Geneva conventions) is fully aware that, in war, the onus is not on the invading party to determine whether it is safe to capture anyone. The onus is on the party being invaded to actively surrender. The Geneva conventions does not prohibit killing unarmed combatants at all. It only prohibits killing unarmed combatants who have surrendered. The contrary interpretation (that if, say, a soldier is faced with a line of 100 enemy soldiers, half of which are armed and half of which are not, that the attacking soldier would have to figure out in advance which ones to kill and which ones not to kill) is so ludicrous that anyone even remotely familiar with the laws of war dismisses it out of hand.

Now, many here may not like what the law of war says. They might even despise it with all their might. They might call it unjust, cruel, etc etc etc. But that doesn't change what the law is. It is a factually false statement to say that any US soldier violated any law of war that night, unless they believe that Bin Laden actively attempted to surrender. It is also a false legal statement to state that Bin Laden was entitled to any "due process" OTHER than the right to be taken alive had he gone out of his way to surrender.

[Vattel]

261. What you claim is incorrect.

You say that the Geneva Conventions "only prohibits killing unarmed combatants who have surrendered." That's not true. It prohibits killing anyone who is "hors de combat." That includes combatants who offer to surrender, but it also includes those who are incapacitated by injury and those who are "in the power of an adverse Party" so long as they do not resist or try to escape. Whether the killing of OBL violated the Geneva protocols depends on what actually happened, and there will be no official investigation of that. An order to make sure that OBL doesn't have the chance to surrender would have been illegal, for example. One big issue is how broadly to interpret the phrase "in the power of an adverse Party." Was OBL "in the power of" the SEALs when he was shot? Based on the New Yorker article, some experts on international law believe that he was; others believe that he was not. If the former are correct, then Geneva was violated.

[coalition_unwilling]

267. I think disposing of the corpse offers presumptive evidence of

violations of Geneva; the executioners could not afford to have any forensic investigation performed or it might be discovered that, for example, OBL was executed while hand-cuffed or other such barbarity.

On edit: IIRC, disposing of combatant's corpses in unmarked graves is ipso facto a gross violation of Geneva. Not that the U.S. observes Geneva.

[hack89]

273. In an age of sucide bombers "unarmed" takes on a new meaning. nt.

[The Hitman]

310. Al Qaeda is not a signatory

[spooked911]

182. it's all BS

9/11 was an inside job and this is just more of the BS story

[Obamanaut]

185. You buy your ticket, you take the ride. He bought his ticket, and he got

the ride. That was enough 'due process'.

[whatchamacallit]

190. And you know this because the architects of the war on terror told you so?

They thank you for your soft mind and compliant nature.

[Obamanaut]

196. Yes, but I come here so that the two or three experts on everything under the sun

can educate me, one of the multitudes of unenlightened. :sarcasm:

It is amazing the number of people for whom I feel no sorrow, and worry not one iota whether they are getting the appropriate 'due process'; the Ft Hood shooter, the bomber in Norway, bin Laden, et al.

[sabrina 1]

313. And it is precisely because the knew there would be people with those sentiments

that the Founding Fathers felt the need to write the Constitution. They definitely understood human beings and did not trust them to uphold principles of justice without laws to deter them from administering vigilante 'justice'.

We long ago, thanks to Bush/Cheney et al gave up on those principles. And to think we thought that we were going to 'change' all this when we elected democrats.

Btw, when we here were all outraged over these powers being given to Bush, what was your position on it then? I ask because back then I don't recall a single democrat supporting a POTUS having this kind of power.

[lpbk2713]

193. This guy was unarmed.

And OBL didn't lose any sleep over whether he was or not.

Piss on OBL. I hope the fish and the crabs had a good meal.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

224. +1000

Blunt, and to the point.

Fuck bin Laden and fuck the false flag handwringers who are looking to punch every last hole in the boat.

[meow mix]

202. its bin laden.. wtf

were suppose to act like the local constables, against our war enemy.. and one who destoyed our country.
:rofl:
and i suppose when they find something "reasonable to doubt" we send him free with our apologies :rofl:

[Nye Bevan]

209. Yeah. Too bad OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony did not get the same treatment.

An execution team sent into their holding cells shortly after their arrest would have been quick, clean and provided immediate closure. Really evil people do not deserve to have trials, where prosecutors have to go to the trouble of presenting evidence and stuff and proving their case. And as for juries, they are best avoided in cases like this where everyone knows the accused person is guilty and deserves to die.

Of course the usual "bleeding heart" minority of DUers would have complained about the Constitution being violated, to which the right-thinking majority would have replied "it's OJ Simpson.... wtf".

[JI7]

212. OJ and Casey Anthony denied they were guilty

[flvegan]

217. Due process? LOL. For Bin Laden?

Let me know when they come for George W Bush on the same thing.

This is a country of revenge, emotion driven. Hence the Death Penalty. Supported by egotistical idiots that don't know any better.

[DebJ]

218. The USA is collapsing financially, physically (infrastructure) and

has split into seriously extremist factions while we face these serious problems.

I can't believe this topic is worth discussing. Red herring type of thing.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

229. Some people want to make sure Obama has nothing going for him come 2012

Just sayin'.

[LLStarks]

220. I'm willing to make a single exception for OBL. Same as if the Allies ever managed to capture Hitler

[anneboleyn]

241. Amen. Of course the Russian army would have gotten him first, and you can bet they would

not have bothered with a trial. Goebbels (and his wife who of course also murdered their children) and Hitler and Eva "Mrs. Hitler" Braun vocalized their certain death if the Russian army reached them first. Himmler actually tried to surrender (himself and the Wermacht and all of Germany) to Eisenhower (who refused) for the same reason -- to save his own hide.

[JVS]

254. Bullshit. Stalin gave orders to take him alive if at all possible.

The Red Army did not make a habit out of ignoring Stalin's orders. And Stalin was a very big fan of putting people on trial. Hitler's suicide was a disappointment to Stalin, and Hitler killed himself because he knew that he was going to be put on trial, humiliated, and made a spectacle of.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

225. When did he become an American citizen?

Also, I thought we were infidels. God's law, blah blah....all that.

I know, I know......how tragic those Seals didn't sacrifice their lives and go home in bodybags themselves just to make sure he was taken alive.

Fuck him.

[coalition_unwilling]

236. Um, we are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, one section

of which extends the right to due process of law to every signatory.

International treaties to which we are signatories that have been ratified by the Senate have the same power and force as the U.S. Constitution.

Why bother having international treaties if you are going to pick and choose which ones you will honor? Why not just wing it? Come to think of it, what did the Peace of Westphalia (1648) really accomplish after all?

[BzaDem]

242. The "due process" the Geneva Conventions extends to an unarmed combatant is the right to be taken

alive IF they actively surrender. There is NOTHING in the Geneva Conventions that states that an unarmed combatant (who doesn't actively surrender) cannot be killed, and anyone who even hints to the contrary is making a false statement of the law.

[DebJ]

249. I'll trade you a trial for OBL in return for a trial for GWB and Cheney.

Preferably one held in a European or other educated court.

[JVS]

256. So are you ok with it if so-called minutemen gun down illegal aliens and tourists?

After all, they're not American citizens.

[BzaDem]

257. American due process applies to citizens, to non-citizens on US soil, and to those in Guantanamo

(where there is no law independent of American law). In other countries, in the civilian context, the law of the country is what controls. In the military context, it is the laws of war that control.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

301. What military rank do "minutemen" hold again?(n/m)

[Dystopian]

244. .......

peace~

[Kalidurga]

253. The premise of the opening statement is flawed there for the arguement that follows

is flawed. The premise is that OBL was in custody. He was not in custody there for the argument that he was in custody unarmed and executed is a false premise. So, he was not murdered, he was not assassinated, he was shot as a hostile that failed to surrender.

[EFerrari]

279. Ditto. He couldn't fail to surrender if he was never asked to surrender. n/t

[Raine]

251. Hit and run

you couldn't even come back and respond to a single reply? :shrug:

[LadyLeigh]

263. Actually, I am still here. I'm reading the replies.

I don't feel like I have much to add though. I have stated my opinion on the topic. Apparently some people agree with me, and some don't.

I see it the same as with the death penalty: If one makes exceptions, one isn't against the death penalty.

As for "making exceptions", in this case I would include under this definition engaging in some sort of legalistic sophistry on how a person who is subdued and in custody, during a time later than any actual combat, is still a combatant, or making some sort of argument as to how certain acts should be viewed differently depending on the location in which they happened.

[EFerrari]

278. Even if you define him as a combatant at that moment,

it's still illegal to execute him.

[Karmadillo]

268. What an enlightened bunch. Go team!

nt

[Hobo]

270. Wow this thread is still around?

Really,


Bin Laden got what he deserved. Please stop with the BS. The guy was an enemy combatant. I really can't believe this stuff about due process. Please go bark up another tree, please? Go after Bush/Cheney.

He was a enemy combatant, nuff said



And if you want come at me, please don't bring a knife to gun fight. I'll be waiting


Hobo

:beer:

a :toast: to the seal who ended this cretins life.

[CJCRANE]

276. If Bin Laden was captured the RWers would be screaming

why didn't you execute him?!!

Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress blocked civilian trials for the other so-called 9/11 masterminds. The same would have happened to Bin Laden, he would have been in a legal limbo. IMO the SEALs did the right thing under the circumstances.

I noticed the OP didn't reply to any questions in this thread so I'm not convinced the OP actually believes the proposition she put forward. It seems more like a disingenuous attempt at point-scoring.

[aquart]

283. Welcome to DU.

"Pretty simple" is only for children who can't handle more complex understanding. Like the first Harry Potter book.

"Pretty simple" isn't how anything really is.

[Taverner]

284. Mixed emotions

On one hand, I couldn't care less for OBL. Good riddance.

On the other hand, yes - this is a betrayal of our justice system. And we took the low road. Either you are for "all are equal under the law" or you aren't. It's like being pregnant.

[Evasporque]

289. well...deadmen tell no tales....nt

[rms013]

290. Revenge is not Justice

[chrisa]

299. My feeling at the time, and still my feeling, is that

they were afraid of an epic Pakistani shit-storm, as in a massive military attack against the NAVY Seal team. At least that way, Bin Laden would be dead, and wouldn't be able to be freed or escape.

[Demonaut]

302. yay!

fuck him

[McCamy Taylor]

303. If Bush had done the same, we could have avoided two costly foreign wars.

[EFerrari]

304. Oh, come on. Invading Afghanistan to catch bin Laden

was like invading Chicago to get Al Capone. It has nothing to do with extra-judicial assassination. It was just stupid but profitable for president Cheney et al.

[HappyMe]

314. Too bad, too sad.

Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.


There are still people dying here from diseases related to those attacks.

Whine & cry 'due process' all you want. Thousands died. Hundreds are still paying for (and will pay for) this.
There's no telling what the eventual REAL death toll will be.


Fuck him.

I'm not usually an eye for a eye girl -- this time, I am.

[NeedleCast]

322. No Tears For Bin Laden