assilem

Kerry wants a trial for Osama Bin Laden instead of a military tribunal. I cannot for the life of me understand why. I don't even think Osama deserves a trial. Just kill the fucker. If someone could shed some light on Kerry's motives for this one please do so. Like I said, why would that make any sense? With a trial there is always a chance he could walk.

Link

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AP: Kerry in Favor of U.S. Bin Laden Trial

Jul 30, 3:45 PM (ET)

By RON FOURNIER and NEDRA PICKLER

NEWBURGH, N.Y. (AP) - John Kerry said Friday he would put Osama bin Laden on trial in U.S. courts rather than an international tribunal to ensure the "fastest, surest route" to a murder conviction if the terrorist mastermind is captured while he is president.

"I want him tried for murder in New York City, and in Virginia and in Pennsylvania," where planes hijacked by al-Qaida operatives crashed Sept. 11, 2001, Kerry said in his first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee.

The Saudi-bred terrorist is suspected of plotting attacks that have shed blood across the globe, not just in the United States. Kerry suggested he would place the highest priority on avenging American deaths.

He called the Bush administration's attempt to create a Muslim security force in Iraq an overdue act of desperation. "Great idea," he said. "Should have been done from the very beginning.".

Kerry fielded questions about foreign policy, presidential politics, abortion and the death penalty in a 12-minute interview at a Wendy's fast-food restaurant in this GOP-leaning Hudson Valley community.

After polishing off a bowl of chili and a Frosty, the newly minted nominee took Bush and his Republican allies head-on.

"They don't have a record to run on so all they can do is attack," Kerry said. He was responding to Bush, who a few minutes earlier had said from the campaign trail that Kerry had no "significant achievements" in Congress.

Word of the criticism drew a chuckle from the fourth-term senator, who wore an open-collar shirt and slacks. "That's the response to a positive campaign." he said sarcastically.

The night before, in his hometown of Boston, Kerry accepted the Democratic nomination at a convention scripted to project a positive, upbeat image to independent voters. The Democratic National Committee launched a $6 million ad campaign that starts positive but is virtually certain to turn negative, party officials said.

Saying he had no control over the DNC ads, Kerry didn't rule out airing his own ads critical of the White House. "I'm going to certainly reserve the right to respond to these people if they continually hack away," he said.

On the Muslim force initiative pushed by Saudi Arabia, Kerry said "Why is that being done as an act of desperation today rather than two years ago before a lot of lives were lost?" He said it was yet another lost opportunity to build a coalition that would help ease the U.S. burden in money and lives.

"A change in the presidency is essential to our ability to restore our respect" in the world, Kerry said.

"We broke relationships by rushing to war without allowing our allies to work through their own politics and their own reservations so they could come to the table, support it," he said. "That is a breach of common sense about how you take a nation to war."

Kerry has long been an opponent of the death penalty, but in recent years has made an exception for terrorism. The former prosecutor said crimes like rape and child murder do not warrant the highest punishment.

"It's certainly terrorizing to the person who's undergoing it. I understand that," Kerry said. "But terrorism is a political act to terrorize a nation, to try to challenge a way of life and a standard.. It's just a different act."

He said bin Laden deserves to die.

"I would go the fastest, surest route of conviction, and in my belief that would be a trial for murder in the United States," the Democrat said when asked if he would seek to try bin Laden at The Hague.

Stepping gingerly into another social issue, Kerry reiterated that he believes that life begins at conception - and that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort.

Asked whether he believes abortion is taking a life, Kerry said a fetus is a "form of life."

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land." The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade ruling legalized abortion in America.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

Pacifier

because a trial is more "constitutional state" like?
to simply "kill the fucker" feels a bit like dictatorship to me.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

cthulu23

Ther is no chance that bin Laden would walk. Let's get that out of the way first. Kerry asked for a trial in the US, not the International Criminal Court. As a former prosecutor, I'm sure he knows the value of the venue.

The US is a nation of laws and founded on the rights of all. When we begin exercising our authority outside the bounds of these laws then we have betrayed what America is all about. Bush's imperial, indefinite detention of his enemies at Guantanamo definitely fits this description, as would summarily executing our worst enemy. Sometimes there are more important considerations then the satisfaction of passionate release.

Flyguy

There's something called due process. Which EVERY PERSON in this counrty is entiled to. The consitution isn't invalid fo one person no matter what they've done. Go ahead and call me unpatrotic you right wing bastards. But this is still the United States of America, not the United Dictatorship of America.

assilem

Good points Pacifier and cthulu23.

Last time I checked Flyguy, Bin Laden was not a citizen of this country and as far as I know he is an enemy combatant not a criminal. This is a war that he is fighting against us, is it not? So to a degree even Pacifier and cthulu23 points, while well made, still don’t compute with me. IMHO.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

cthulu23

There is no US policy that supports the immediate execution of our enemies (the use of the word "execution" precludes self-defense as a reason). To do so would be illegal. After WWII, did we not try the Nazis? That is what civilized societies do. We must remember to steady our emotions when dealing with issues such as this. We don't want to start walking the path towards "honor killings" or vigilantism.

Journeyman

Bush seriously needs to take a page or two from Kerry's book. I see Republicans trying to legislate God's word into many a citizens lives, and I've heard it rationalized away by "Without a moral foundation there is no law!" Well I dunno about all that, but I do know that a very big book is very dear to a lot of faithful people, and a little document that doesn't seem to be as dear as it use to be by the administration has a bit in it about how the big book can't be more than a general guide.

Mojo_PeiPei

Uncle Jim: Look Ned it's Osama Bin Laden... He's coming right for us!!! <Fire insane rocket launcher weapon>

********

I'll agree OBL's ass would be toast either way, but the show is well, just that a show. You'd probably get some asshat professor from Harvard who would try and defend OBL for noteriety's(sp) sake, plus this would probably keep the far-left (the one's that border on insanity) happy.

However I think it's retarded. OBL has the blood on his hands of not just American's. Even 9-11 took the lives of non-American's, that's why one could make the case for an international trial.

But on that same notion usually it is war criminal's who are tried in international courts, OBL is an illegal combatant so I doubt he would get that treatment. No way in hell would it be trial by jury, just for the very fact that is way beyond a criminal case. It really either comes down to who rules on it first, in the nature of this case congress has the constitutional right to dictate the venue and nature by a law as they see fit (Article III section 2), or the Supreme Court could step in and do likewise, it's not up to the President in either case.

I won't call you unpatriotic, just ignorant.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

cthulu23

And I'll call you out of line.

pan6467

By calling for a TRIAL it shows the international community that WE ARE TAKING CARE OF IT.

If we said we wanted a military tribunal, the UN, World Court, and half of the world would be saying they wanted a piece of the action and that a tribunal by US military was against international law and blah blah blah.

By saying he is a criminal and is going to be tried for murder in the US Criminal Court System there's not a whole hell of a lot any country can do to protest that.

I think for someone the right says is a UN wimp this shows extreme sovereignity. And I believe by trying him in the Criminal Court System is the only way to keep other entities out of our business by showing them even our darkest enemies we treated give the right to a trial (I truly believe the biggest problem would be to find 12 people in NY, Pa, and Va that wouldn't be biased.)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Pacifier

doesn't matter, belive it or not even a non american has some rights.

enemy combatant is a made up status.
either hes a POW or a criminal.

that would make him a POW.
Personally I would like to see him in front of an international court since his crimes were against the international community.

"just killing" him would be "mob law" and that is inacceptable for every civilised nation.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Mojo_PeiPei

What was so out of line calling someone who is ignorant of our laws and judicial system, **ig·no·rant** 3. Unaware or uninformed, after they lash out calling me a right wing bastard for something they are not only offbase on, but completely wrong?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

Illegal combatant is not a made up status, it is a withholding status in reference to people who are not protected by Geneva accords or other international law. Bin Laden is not fighting in a regular army that is sanctioned by any country, he is a foreign terrorist in a sovereign country (whether it be Afganistan or Pakistan) who is actively engaging a legitmate army.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Pacifier

jep, and that would make him a criminal.
like I said either POW or criminal. No other status is needed.
What are the rights the a "Illegal combatant"? has, who has defined them? it there any kind of international treaty defining an "Illegal combatant"?

also, no matter what status he has, there is no justification for a constitutional state, ethically and lawfully, to just execute a prisoner. that would be a sign of the same barbarism that we claim to figth.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Mojo_PeiPei

I guess you could make the assertation that illegal combatant is a result of Geneva in how it defines legal combatants. When you have a person fighting in a warzone, outside their own sovereignity (such as Al Qeada), without proper declaration, without proper definition of a uniform or combat distingushment, you have an illegal combatant. Geneva clearly states all of that is illegal. Don't try and make a case of simple semantics, you won't win.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

cthulu23

The designation of terrorists as unlawful combatants is a recent phnomenon cooked up by the Bush administration. The term is intended to apply to saboteurs, spies or other agents of an enemy nation during a war. Obviously, terrorists don't quite make it into this category as they aren't really agents of any particular nation. This is probably the only status that leaves an individual completely at the mercy of the military, which explains the Administration's desire to apply it across the board.

Mojo_PeiPei

http://www.free-definition.com/Illeg...w_and_practice

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

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

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

cthulu23

Major_PeiPei,

Notice that those rules applies to agents of a nation that we are at war with.

KMA-268,

Your plan C may make sense to you, but I'm sure that you agree that this can't be the US's official stance.

KMA-628

oh yeah.

We might have to muddy the water a bit in this case, but I think the opposite comes with too high a cost.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Flyguy

My knowlegde of our judical system is ignorant? This coming from someone who embraces "mob law" and "revenge killings?"

Flyguy

For all we know, the fucker's already dead. But it hasn't gotten out for the very reason stated above.

KMA-628

I think that there is a need to show the world he is dead, if he is so.

It is how it is shown/handled that concerns me.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

pan6467

Love when they have to bring out the definition of ignorant so they can use it as a lame excuse of not attacking the person they called ignorant.

Instead of calling people ignorant, why don't you inform them of the "facts". It's easy to call names then say "nothing personal" while not showing any substance yourself. It's elitist, prejudicial and shows you have no rational argument for your side so if you call a name and try to belittle them they'll shut up or those listening to them will tune them out because they are "ignorant" according to you. That way your side doesn't have to truly face the issue and can do what you want and say, "well we won the debate/election so obviously the people want us to do it our way." When in actuality you just bullied or degraded the other side enough so that noone sees you're issues wouldn't win anything.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

filtherton

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.

Zeld2.0

Before this thread gets out of hand and/or closed, one does not make statements about other members without backing it up without any substance or evidence.

And it doesn't really matter if it is a trial or not because honestly, he would be toast either way.

And yeah, the Nazi's had the Nuremberg Trial - there was no doubt they were going to fry (and if you think the deaths of 6 million in camps + 50million+ due to war is not worse than OBL, you would be dead wrong) - but it was given and that is that.

Dragonlich

If at all possible, he should be tried as a common criminal. He should NOT be tried as a POW, as this would make him a soldier. Turning him into a mass-murderer will show to the world how incredibly evil and cowardly he is. Turning him into a soldier more or less legitimizes his struggle - it would mean the US is at war with him, which will turn him into a hero to some.

I would prefer a UN court, trying him for crimes against humanity. The reason isn't that I like the UN per se, but that he killed people all over the world, from many different nationalities. He may claim to be fighting the US, but he's fighting humanity as a whole.

(Zeld: actually, after the Nuremburg trials, one or two people were released. So it wasn't a foregone conclusion at all.)

Zeld2.0

Dragonlich:

I mainly meant the big dogs like Goering and others. Most of those who were released were mostly minor officers or often high ranking men that were dealing with the military (like the pilot guy whose name escapes me at this time), and Admiral Durnitz (spelling? sorry) - they wwere sentenced but came out without fully serving the term.

Osama would certainly be considered one of the 'big dogs'

MSD

Stop the personal attacks and low shots at each other. This thread could keep going in a civilized manner if we all take a deep breath and don't let the inner child take over.

Remember, when angry, count to ten before speaking, if very angre, a hundred.

I'm going to throw aside everything that isn't directly tied to keeping a favorable public opinion and minimizing retaliatory attacks. If we want any chance of not seeing retributions, it would have to be an Arab nation who gets him, preferably one with an Islamic government who can try him for stuff like killing fellow Muslims, any other offenses to Allah they can accuse him of committing, and also for his terrorist activities. Make it a big public trial with widespread television, radio, newspaper, and all types of coverage that will make sure that the whole world, but especially the Arab world, will know about it. Let Saudi Arabia try him as part of their new effort to get their act together and execute him in whatever sort of unpleasant way the Saudis deal with that sort of person.

Seaver

Um... most common people in Saudi Arabia believe it was the Jews who committed 9/11. I wouldnt suggest that, if they let him off how stupid would we look if we killed an "innocent" person.

matteo101

He damn well better have to pay for his healthcare. We wouldnt want him to get free dialysis when being tried in the US.

Dragonlich

If the US provides Saudi prosecuters with enough solid evidence, the common people in SA can believe whatever they care to believe. He'll still be convicted and executed, and they'll still be wrong. If the trial proceedings are shown on the SA telly, along with expert opinions, the common people will have a very hard time maintaining their belief in conspiracy theories.

Just a question, though: do you have some evidence to back your claim (independent survey or something)? I find it hard to believe that "most common people" in SA would believe something as stupid as that. Sure, many idiots would believe it, but not most SA people, surely?

cthulu23

The leaders of Saudi Arabia may be our strong allies, but the people are another matter. The majority of 9-11 hijackers were Saudi, as is OBL himself. The US has pulled out of it's military bases there and we still here of kidnappings of foreign workers and bombings. the Saudi government is skating on very thin ice. I don't think that Saudi Arabia is where we want to have a show trial.

Superbelt

I think the distinction Kerry is making here is that an International Tribunal no longer has the death penalty. A criminal trial in the US HAS THE DEATH PENALTY. Kerry want's to make sure Osama doesn't get to die an older man.
I think that's all there is to it.
Thank you.

wonderwench

Saddam is going to be tried in Iraq under the Iraq sysem of justice.

Seems rather fitting

Superbelt

Why the bloody hell would Bin Laden be tried in Iraq?

He had nothing to do whatsoever with Iraq.

You confusing him with Saddam?

Seaver

Watch the Discovery documentary "Roots of 9/11", its a 3 hour documentary that takes a non-biased approach.

Includes interviews by Arab-Professor Khuri. He's one of my favorites, his books are amazing and he completes every statement with at least three sentences explaining how/why/where he got the information so you can verify the validity if you wish.

In the documentary they visited Saudi Arabian, Indonesian, and Pakistani schools. In almost all of them everyone of the lay people (non-professors) believed that 9/11 was either done by the US or by Jews to insite a war against Muslims.

Another documentary I suggest (sorry cant remember the name), was about the emergence of a taliban-like government structure in Pakistan that has been gaining control in the parliment.

onetime2

Here's a question for y'all. Forget about the whole tribunal vs trial thing and let's just look at the trial part of it. How in the hell could a jury be picked for this? Are there more than a dozen people (jury plus alternates) in these locations who can honestly say they would come into it with an open mind?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

Finding jurors would definitely be among the problems in bringing OBL to trial, with security as one of the most troublesome aspects. Yes, a trial opens up all sorts of problems, just as a tribunal opens up a slew of other problems. Given that juries can be found in small town murder cases, for instance, I think that we could overcome this problem pretty easily.

onetime2

I don't think the two can even remotely be compared.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.