Even the Israelis gave Eichmann a trial.

It starts out as one of those nagging feelings in the back of your mind.

There’s something wrong here. Something very wrong. But, you keep your mouth shut. You just can’t quite put two and two together. If you criticize the action, you risk a rabid response of being an apologist and a supporter of an accused mass murderer.



Yet, that nagging feeling persists. There’s something very wrong here. Osama Bin Laden is dead. As he should be. But, it just doesn’t mesh with what we’ve been told for our entire lives about how things are supposed to work. The accused are always supposed to be afforded a trial, where they may confront the evidence and witnesses against them.



Then at 5:00am on a Saturday morning, it hits you like a pitcher of cold water, rousing you from a dead sleep.



After World War II, captured Nazi officials and officers were captured and put on trial at Nuremburg. Many were hanged, and others got long prison sentences. But, that’s not the point here.



After the war, a high ranking official named Adolph Eichmann escaped arrest and fled to South America. this was a man, whose bureaucratic efficiency in genocide made Osama Bin Laden look like a rank amateur. He sent millions to their deaths like clockwork. And he was frustrated that he wasn’t killing enough Jews.



The Mossad tracked Eichmann down in Argentina in 1960. They tracked his routine and his movements for weeks. An assassination would have been fairly easy for experienced commandos. Eichmann had a standard routine. He took the bus to and from work each day, and had a walk of several blocks, in the dark, to reach his home. A knife in the back, or a couple of silenced .22 cal slugs in the back of the head, and vengeance is taken.



But, the Israeli’s knew they had a teachable moment here. Drag him back to Israel, and put him on public trial for his crimes. Let the world see first hand what a monster was lurking in their midst.



They did, and they hung him. The teachable lesson was, that the rule of law can prevail. Criminals can be brought to justice the right way. Even executed for their crimes.



Now, back to this week. We tracked down Osama Bin Laden to a villa in Pakistan. We monitored the situation from a safe house for months. We sent a team of commandos in, who encountered little resistance, and according to recent accounts, shot and killed Bin Laden. We then flew the body out and tossed it into the sea.



Now what type of an international precedent did we just set? We just told the whole world, that the rule of law does not apply, as far as we’re concerned. It’s like the International Conventions Against Torture. That law is in place to protect our soldiers in case of capture. And we agree to abide by it to avoid retaliation.



Now, just suppose that the Vietnamese, or the Cambodians, or the Timorese, or especially the Chileans, decided to issue a warrant for crimes against humanity against Henry Kissinger. If we fail to turn him over for trial, are they justified in assassinating him?



Suppose a new Iraqi government wants George W. Bush? Suppose Nicaragua decides it would like to hold a trial for Oliver North, John Poindexter, or Elliot Abrams?



Suppose that a dictator like Augusto Pinochet wanted to put Orlando Letelier on trial for trumped up charges? Would that lead to car bombs going off in Washington DC? Oh, wait.



And that’s where that nagging feeling comes from. This isn’t what my country is supposed to be about. We’re supposed to be better than that. We’re supposed to be a beacon of freedom and the rule of law. Not a rogue state that takes the law into it’s own hands.



We’re not supposed to be the new Pinochet. If Israel could afford Eichmann a trial, we should have at least tried to do the same.

Olympics as well as any number of more recent terrorists suspects active in Gaza and the West Bank.

Just saying.. your analogy is time dependent, not that this is a good development. Criminals associated with WWII were tried at Nuremburg because of the US--not in spite of.

It seems like they changed as a country. As have we.

It is no longer the kind of place where something like the Nuremberg trials could be conducted for a person like Osama bin Laden.

There was no possibility of retaliation.

couldn't agree more. Something is very wrong--but it's been wrong for some time, hasn't it?

And I have my doubts that this vengeance killing will put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Can't make an empire without breaking a few eggs...

Otherwise he should get every consideration you or I would get. Lots of evidence thrown out because there's no chain of custody or we won't reveal the methods or sources. We can get in trouble if we aren't careful

CIA Man 1 takes stand
Lawyer: How did you find out about ...
CIA1: We intercepted the call on May 7, 2002
OBL Takes stand
Lawyer: Did you make that call?
OBL: yes, on my AT&T Super Secret Batphone
Lawyer: Were you using the batphone's encrypted mode?
OBL: yes, always
CIA Man 2 takes the stand
Lawyer: Did you swear to the European courts in the Boeing vs Airbus trial of 2006 that the US gov cannot intercept batphone calls and you could not have known about the call between Airbus and the French govt in 2004?

elsewhere in the world
terrorists stop using batphones
Airbus requests a retrial

Just wondering why he had to be kidnapped.

get a bullet to the head. The "noble" Israeli meme doesn't work.

Some differences between the two situations include the fact that Eichmann was no longer an active combatant, as bin Laden was. WW2 was done, the war he had declared on us, not done. Big, big, difference. Also, Israel did not exist at the time of Eichmann's crimes, thus they were not committed against that State, Israel was not at war with Germany, and never had been.
The CIA knew where Eichmann was and did nothing, because the German National Security Advisor had in fact worked with Eichmann in the 'Jewish Affairs' Department.
The arrest mission was not legal. Israel denied for weeks that it was official, claiming volunteers had done it. Golda herself denied those agents were their own. Argentina took complaints to the UN. The Israelis had forged documents, license plates, and outside of all legal authority, took the presumed Eichmann by force, drugged him, and removed him from the country disguised as El Al Crew.
The only reason they got by with this is because of the level of Eichmann's crimes. They illegally entered another country, kidnapped, drugged and extradited a person they simply declared to be Eichmann. Nothing legal about it at all.
Had there been any supporters of Eichmann still active, the danger of reprisal would have figured into things they did not face State nor individual responses in Eichmann's support. His allies were all defeated, dead, jailed, or alternatively in high positions of US or German government, and thus no longer available to help Eichmann. Eichmann was working in a factory there, not hiding, and he'd been turned in by a resident whose daughter was friendly with the Eichmanns. None of this is similar to Bin Laden at all.
And of course, Israel has many times since used targeted killings of terrorists, in several parts of the world, targets far less intense than bin Laden. Why do you think they do that now? Do you think they'd handled Eichamann the same way in 2010 as they did in 1960?
And here's a corker for you. If Israel, today, did the same thing how would you react? Without legal standing, they enter a nation, kidnap and drug a resident, smuggle him without record to Israel, hold him up as 'the terrrorist' and put him on 'trial' on television. Would you approve at all? Would you expect others would? Who would believe them? Would Iran believe them? Hamas? Do you think they could smoothly try such a figure in public there today?
I think if Israel did that today, there would be huge public outcry, so I assume that today, they'd go in, kill the fucker and never bother telling anyone about it.
And my final question involves a home truth, if you can. The bin Laden trial. How excited would you be about your most beloved younger family member sitting on the jury, for months, in a published location, in public, in the room with Usama? On a scale of 1 to 10. Would it be worth their death to give a confessed mass murderer a show trial? Would you yourself sit in the courtroom on the jury?
Would Israel have put him on trial if the Reich still existed as sleeper cells, making threats and attacks as they could? Eichmann's war was 15 years over. He was planning nothing. He had no associates who were planning anything. His home had no security, no guns, no guards, he took the bus to his factory job each day.
There are precious few similarities between the two cases. Oh, and what is with 'Even the Israelis'? Are they so horrid to you that 'even they' makes a good term of art for you?

OP said "even the Israelis" because he meant even those the most horribly and obviously wronged -- even the most seriously victimized had the decency to put their torturer on trial, which showed the world what he did and left no doubt as to his guilt.

Are 3,000 American lives worth so much more than those of millions of Jews that their "mass murderer" shouldn't even stand trial?

Also, are you saying in your post that some criminals are just "too big to try"? :rofl:

Yeah, gee, I'd be so scared and stuff if my "beloved younger family member" sat on the jury. NOT.
I stopped believing in boogeymen around the time I stopped believing in Santa.

court, then no one should be. Hindrances to a trial of the these famous folks are just larger versions of smaller folk.

So, if you have a shoplifter, shoot and kill him. If we try him, other shoplifters will retaliate against you, and a trial would allow them to gather information about the best ways to avoid detection, arrest, and trial.

Hot check? Find and kill the writer. A charge and court appearance would only stir the legions of hot check writers into action against you, and a trial would only allow the writers access to investigative methods used to capture them.

Child got bullied at school? Find the bully and kill him. Arrest and trial would only increase bullying against you and yours, and a trial would only allow bullies to find out how we capture and try bullies.

See how easy it would make everything? Think I'll head out to the garage and saw the barrel off my dead dad's 10 gauge shotgun. There's this really annoying waitress who can never remember to refill my hot tea at Denny's.............

Not just mass murder? Annoying you is equal to murder? Interesting, to say the least.

Bin Laden is a disgruntled former employee who was executed without so much as a hearing by his former employers.

Reasons given for not trying him (and all the inmates at Gitmo) involve, "Gee, we'll be open to reprisals" or "Gee, they'll learn our investigating methods", or "Gee, they're just too dangerous to even try."

I have no personal knowledge of bin Laden or any of the folks at Gitmo, but I can assure you, that waitress is annoying every time by my own personal experience.

No use saying you have a just system if only some are entitled to protections and trials, and others are not.


Also see: A Modest Proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

that's the authoritarian way. If you don't agree with this here on DU, you must be an Osama sympathizer.

Who cares about the rule of law, after all Obama's a Democrat.

Strange how those who bitterly complained about street celebrations after 9/11 favored them strongly now.

I do notice that wives and families of several victims did not think the champagne-popping was at all appropriate.

So not EVERYONE has lost their mind. But a bunch have.

All we have is GWB "saying so."
Apparently the PTB didn't want OBL anywhere near a courtroom -- gee, I wonder why? The fact that he's "dead" now is very convenient, isn't it? (though I believe he died long ago).

I have never seen conclusive EVIDENCE that OBL had anything to do with 9/11 -- in fact, he denied it.

that's good enough for me.

Bin Laden did claim responsibility for 911



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

Or, indeed, even "Find and kill someone you THINK may have written that hot check."

thanks!

there was no war in progress and it was many years after the fact. The Nuremberg war trials were also held after the war, and involved war criminals who had been captured (those who resisted were killed) or who had surrendered in occupied territory. Had the Allies found an opportunity to assassinate Eichmann, or Hitler, or any other Nazi combatant before the end of WWII, they would have done so (and very likely did on numerous occasions).

By your reasoning, every combat death in a war zone is "murder," and all combatants should be given a trial before they are killed. OBL was not a head of state (like Saddam), nor was he a civilian who was entitled to a fair trial by any country's standards. He was a dangerous enemy combatant "general" in an active war zone, engaged in plotting lethal operations against the United States. Just as with an enemy sniper who is shooting at our troops from a rooftop, no arrest warrant or indictment was needed take him out, nor was he entitled to a trial.

Congress never declared one. Nation of Laws. Constitution. All of that inconvenient stuff.

What we have are a couple of imperialist invasions and occupations going on. Not wars.

As far as an "enemy sniper shooting at troops from a rooftop". Yes, when he is engaged at that time in attempting to take lives, yes, deadly force is warranted. When you're apparently unarmed and surrounded, you are arrested and put on trial.

That's what used to separate us from scum like Saddam, Pinochet, and yes, Bin Laden. We used to be better than that.

there is indeed a raging war going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Semantics have little relevance in a combat zone, and enemy combatants and death are very real. It makes absolutely no difference if the sniper is actively engaged in firing at you at the time you kill him, or not -- he remains an enemy sniper. Deadly force is always warranted in a combat zone. OBL was an enemy combatant, and the mission was to capture him, or take him out. When the first shot was fired by his companions, he was a dead man.

Your altruistic message is well-intentioned, but does not reflect the real world -- either now, or in any active combat zone (AKA "war"), declared or not: Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, etc. Combat troops in a combat zone facing death do not care one whit whether you believe that their situation is legal, moral, or sanctioned by Congress. There are no politics, legal proceedings, or second chances in a combat zone. Their only goal is to keep themselves, and their team mates alive.

In an ideal fantasy world your naivete would be admirable and worth consideration. Unfortunately, combat zones are neither ideal, nor a fantasy.

Been there, done that.

Just a few hundred yards from the Pakistani Military Academy.

And unfortunately, I know a little about combat zones from 1969-71.

Been there, done that too.

n/t

do you think that if killing him was the only option, they would not have done it?

they would have taken them all out without hesitation.

But you do have a good point, and I agree with the basic idea. I'm honestly content with the result of the OBL raid, but I'm also glad that it has led to this kind of discussion - I think bush went way too far to the dark side, and too many people think that its a new norm. I'd much rather see a good public debate lead us back to a better standard.

I've been gone a few weeks (high in the Rockies) and have hardly recognized this place since I returned, for all the blood lust.

I share your concerns.

Not all of us are gung-ho vigilante "justice," esp. when it was GWB (a serial liar) who proclaimed OBL's "guilt" and used it as the basis for his (now Obama's) war based on LIES.

"Bin Laden could not have been tried for 9/11 at the International Criminal Court – its jurisdiction only came into existence nine months later. But the Security Council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict.

This would have been the best way of de-mystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers. In the dock he would have been reduced in stature – never more remembered as the tall, soulful figure on the mountain, but as a hateful and hate-filled old man, screaming from the dock or lying from the witness box.

Since his videos exalt in the killing of innocent civilians, any cross-examination would have emphasised his inhumanity. These benefits flowing from justice have forever been foregone."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-robertson-why-its-absurd-to-claim-that-justice-has-been-done-2278041.html

Well, obviously that "teachable moment" failed.

OP said "even the Israelis" because he meant even those the most horribly and obviously wronged -- even the most seriously victimized had the decency to put their torturer on trial, which showed the world what he did and left no doubt as to his guilt.

Are 3,000 American lives worth so much more than those of millions of Jews that their "mass murderer" shouldn't even stand trial?

further divded our country. The issues would have taken a back seat as they did during the Trump /Birther fiasco. Another OJ trial. The guy admitted his part in the attack, Obama said he'd get him, he delivered.What would have been gained from a trial other than on-going incentives for his followers to carry on?

The real deal is that if there's anyone who cannot be tried in an open
court, then no one should be. Hindrances to a trial of the these famous folks are just larger versions of smaller folk.

So, if you have a shoplifter, shoot and kill him. If we try him, other shoplifters will retaliate against you, and a trial would allow them to gather information about the best ways to avoid detection, arrest, and trial.

Hot check? Find and kill the writer. A charge and court appearance would only stir the legions of hot check writers into action against you, and a trial would only allow the writers access to investigative methods used to capture them.

Child got bullied at school? Find the bully and kill him. Arrest and trial would only increase bullying against you and yours, and a trial would only allow bullies to find out how we capture and try bullies.

See how easy it would make everything? Think I'll head out to the garage and saw the barrel off my dead dad's 10 gauge shotgun. There's this really annoying waitress who can never remember to refill my hot tea at Denny's.............

See? Just like you said, no ongoing incentives for anyone else to forget my tea!

Maybe I'll take the shotgun with me next time.

Want a tip?

Eichmann had no chance of being found innocent, so the only point of the trial was to make a big show before they executed him, which they had planned all along.

far longer than he should have. He was considered armed and dangerous and a fugitive. He bragged about the attack on 9-11. He made several videos and didn't need another soap box, nor do his followers. Good riddance to the toxic stain on humanity know as Osama bin laden.

I've been troubled by this whole thing, as well. We ARE supposed to be better than this, better than shooting an unarmed man in cold blood in front of his family, and to me it just seems a continuation of the extra-legal methods that have been employed over the past 10 years.

I guess there's not much that can be done about it at this point, and I'm not sorry that bin Laden is gone. I just would have preferred a more civilized way of dealing with him.

your insight. It bothers me about all
the bloodlust I see on this site.

I suppose its not really an excuse to have a summary execution instead, but if there were a drawn out trial I think the worst in everybody would be on parade.

At least this way, there is something approaching a "national conversation" about whether we should have summary executions, or whether OBL was an outlier and now we're done with that sort of thing because its basically wrong.

very likely from many who support the kill mission. "Good for us" is a good old American tradition....

I have been bothered by this exact thing. The precedence being set for pre emptive killing has destroyed our standing as a just and civilized country. Not only should everyone have their time in court, a trial is an opportunity to watch the justice system at work and reassert our cultural values.

A large part of the American wound has been that this War on Terror seems to be about revenge and not justice, and we are definitely on a slippery slope now.

it was the first time the media and people in general really started talking about Holocaust and its full extent.

It wasn't that the public didn't know that the Nazis had killed Jews; it was that they hadn't known all the details.

Eichmann's trial really WAS a "teachable moment."

I suspect that the U.S. govt. didn't want to put Bin Laden on trial because he knew things that could embarrass certain former and current government figures.

Grow up already!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You kids are funny, sometimes.

does that justify the killing of Americans and our supporters for our action against Bin Laden?Can we say in all honesty we were right in our action? When they strike back,what will our response be?Can we say we were justified but yours was not?Stop the madness."Come lets us reason together"Find a solution and act not react.

A terrorist organization is whole lot more like the Mafia than the Nazis. Consider the difficulties in prosecuting mobsters where they routinely kill prosecutors, lawyers and judged. It is difficult and dangerous work but they do it anyway. And generally they do it the right way, with due process.

do indeed specify the treatment of "civilian combatants". (And are very clear they are not to be tortured, for example.)

The articles of war do not preclude a raid to kill civilian combatants.

Bin Laden was a civilian combatant.

I object to water boarding of prisoners. I object to the recent treatment of Bradley Manning. But one of the down sides of being an international terrorist is that a) some people will object and b) some of those people will try to kill ya. I can't really say I object to that.

And it certainly doesn't make us a rogue nation.

Very different situations.

is that they were afraid of the legal circus this might create.

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2011/05/sleeps_with_the_fishes.html

Short version:
If they had really tried putting Bin Laden to trial it would have attracted ambitious, talented lawyers out to make a name for themselves.

And if it really is true that Bin Laden did not have much of an operational role (i.e. AQ is a terror "franchise" - a decentralized network where Bin Laden "inspires and motivates" rather than being directly involved in planning or carrying out attacks) then there's a bit of uncertainty what the actual outcome of such a trial might be.

Not to mention what sorts of secrets might come out - remember the guy was basically a CIA asset in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

And think of how much trouble they had with Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. The legal contortions they had to go through.

So, just whack the guy. Potentially very inconvenient if you just capture him.

and put him on trial... with appeals for years.. then wait for the inevitable hostages taking by his supportors to trade Americans for his release...

no... this was the right way to do it. He declared war on us.. it wasn't clear if he was reaching for a weapon or a bomb when he "retreated"... his wife rushed the seals.. she could have had a suicide bomb.. they showed restraint by shooting her in the leg. His shooting was in context of a war theater justified killing of a mass murderer who resisted capture. We may never know for sure what that resistance was, but i for one am glad it happened the way it did.