Quote:
Originally posted by KMA-628
A different side to this issue:
Do you have any idea what would happen if we held Osama in the U.S. and tried him in the U.S.?
How long do you think the trial would last?
How many nutjobs that haven't attacked us would suddenly decide to?
We are a target right now with or without this piece of scum being held in our borders.
Holding him and trying him within our borders will just make matters worse.
My opnion: We shouldn't be the ones to catch him. Even if we do catch him we should have someone else (a friendly country, i.e. non-French) take the claim....and oh yeah...he tried to fight and we had to shoot him 876 times to stop him.
If we catch him, the attacks on us will increase. If we try him here, the attackes on us will increase. If he is captured and "accidentally" killed attackes against us will increase, but no as much as with the first two options.
I vote for Plan C
|
So, you want this to stay out of america because you're afraid it might make us more of a target? Is that not, on some level, the kind of thing many righties refer to as appeasement? If we let the threat of terrorism get in the way of the just use of our judicial system then haven't the terrorists already won?
I'm not sure if many of you are aware of this, but foreigners who are tried in u.s. courts generally have rights. Gitmo being the exception. Even then, the supreme court has determined that those "unlawful combatants" do have rights, much to the chagrin of the bush administration.
I hope those who would call for revenge executions see the resemblance that they no doubt share with one saddam hussein. Cheers fellas, if we do indeed forego the notion of a trial, one of the hallmarks of the american system, than we will be granting the terrorists at least one small victory.