Should bin Laden have been captured and tried?

While many world leaders applauded the U.S. operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, there were concerns in parts of Europe that the United States was wrong to act as policeman, judge and executioner.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the action as lawful Tuesday, but some in Europe said bin Laden should have been captured and put on trial.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law," former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV. "The operation could also have incalculable consequences in the Arab world in light of all the unrest."

Ehrhart Koerting, Interior Minister in the city-state of Berlin, said: "As a lawyer, I would have preferred to have seen him put on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC)."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-binladen-europe-justice-idUSTRE74264E20110503

Why turn it into a major show that would only garner him more sympathy? Best to get rid of him and leave it at that.

I'm even willing to forgive mistakenly thinking it would not have been feasible even though it might have been. I don't think a trial is worth one of the lives of the people who went in after him. But if there was no attempt, no thought, no intention, active avoidance, of conducting a trial, then that means we're looking at an illegal extrajudicial execution here.

Edit: Recced to zero. People aren't big on the rule of law at the moment, it seems.

n/t

I think it was probably in place as an option, but the circumstances didn't make it possible. I wasn't there, though, so I cannot be sure.

Not sure what you are referencing with that comment.

actually gotten a full account of the details so far. That's why I prefaced my statement with "I think." So I can't tell you the answer to your question. I can think of a number of possible situations where shooting bin Laden would have been the appropriate response, but I wasn't there, so I have no way of knowing exactly how things went. If you have more information, please let me know where I can read a first-hand account of what happened in Pakistan. Most of what I've seen has been speculation on the part of people with no more information than I have.

Less to be speculate about - assuming this new info is accurate.

As it was, he was enemy personel legitimately killed in battle. He was probably also probably out of uniform which means he was liable to be hanged as a spy.

Although I don't support the death penalty universally, there are instances where I do feel it is appropriate. This is one of them.

And made OBL held accountable for his horrific crimes.

I think a trial would have simply been a circus. There would always have been those who would not agree that he received a fair trial, etc.

This is one time where I really think it's best that this be put behind us.

That could have been a nightmare.

ICC's jurisdiction only goes back to 2002. These idiots would probably let him walk on a technicality. Screw that. He got exactly what he deserved. He actually had it easy compared to his victims, who were burned alive instead of shot in the head.

He resisted arrest with deadly force, and was taken down.

Recent reports from the White House say that he was unarmed.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42882664/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

Killing him wraps it all up too neatly with a bow. Plus I live by the old code, not the new one.

:toast:

:toast:

detainees into the United States citing "danger of threats". This happened back in June 2009, I believe. If they're unwilling to do that for unnamed detainees who deserve a fair trial and are mostly innocent, they would certainly NOT do it for OBL who took credit for 9/11.

Beside, then we'd have the Repubes and their bullhorn, American corporate media, attacking the President with their usual one-sided viciousness, and give CorporateDems an excuse to scramble away leaving Pres. Obama pretty vulnerable.

As we speak, rightwing blogs are spreading the rumor that there was a mutiny in the WH, and that Hillary Clinton and Richard Daley, have forced President Obama to act on that strike because he "waffled". It's all over freeperville, I read a comment by a commenter on the Huffington Post. They're deploying the divide the Democrats and conquer the WH!

It came from Pam Geller's site. I wonder if she realizes she's accused the military of treason?

Neither US, Pakistan, nor Afghanistan are parties to the Rome Statute.

He admitted he was responsible for 9/11 years ago. That was his admission of guilt. It just took a while to carry out the sentence. Capturing and trying him turns it into a circus.

We would have been far better to continue with the story that he was armed and fired on the SEALS.

You know, a trial was hard to do, it cost a lot, and it had no real purpose beyond affirming the importance of the rule of law and due process as elements in what used to be called "justice".

He said the CIA, et al didn't have to worry about prosecution for torture, war crimes, etc because they were ...

...they were...

...wait for it...

JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:


So if it had been up to our President, the Nazi war criminals would have gotten a pass.

I believe I had suppressed any memory of that particular evolution in Presidential thinking.

One or the other.

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

What are we supposed to do? Waste twenty million dollars capturing him, feeding him and turning him over to the ICC so they can waste fifty million dollars locking him up, holding what would essentially be a show trial, and incarcerating him for the rest of his life?

This...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

is a list of actions al Qaeda has performed over the years, and Osama bin Laden is known to have been the leader of the band ever since they opened for business.

'Course, I guess we could prosecute him for not paying his income tax.

And I'm sure a trial would have revealed that.

It also would have showcased that the US is a country ruled by law, not by potentates who are above the law and can order extrajudicial killings at will.

A lot more.

:evilgrin:

After you are done interrogating the United States about our assassination of Bin Laden, why don't you go ask Pakistan about the fact that they were harboring him for 5+ years?

Think about the Repuke reaction to the plan to try Gitmo captives in the U.S.

Of course, the responsible thing WOULD have been to try him at the ICC; but that plan itself would have foundered during a political shitstorm.

Of course, had OBL been smart, he would have turned himself in the moment he knew his compound was being attacked -- he would have enjoyed the circuses with himself as the main act.

The ICC only comes into play when countries do not themselves bring forward war criminals for justice.

The US has statutes against crimes against humanity, and could have prosecuted and sentenced OBL successfully.

That would have sent to the world the message that the US adheres to the rule of law and due process, in keeping with its founding principles.

Every nation that had any citizen killed or injured by his group should have tried him. One after another.

the entire downtown area in New York for up to a year because of security. It's bad enough the National Guard is walking around now with helmets and rifles. Forget the ICC - no way anybody but the US was going to put him on trial for 9/11 and the US Cole. The prick is fish food - fuck him.

The man admitted to, rejoiced in, and was exceedingly proud of his mass murders. Seems to me he sealed his own fate.

If the world shares your view, justice is dead.

He admitted and took pride in what he did... there's not a chance he could be found innocent under those very specific circumstances.

They had plenty of time to coax him out and get him to come peaceably.

I'm sorry, are trials too "inconvenient" for you people? Why don't we abolish them within the U.S. as well? It would sure make law enforcement go a lot smoother! Trials - what a hassle!

inconvenient to deal with the terrorist threat. I understand that many democrats are weak willed fraidy cats but hearing 'the republicans will have a field day' is just too much for me.

over him being gone? No.

Yours is not a black and white question.

capture him alive, would have given the world, particularly the Islamic world, a window into his evil soul and organization. Whatever popularity that he now holds with his death would dissipate. Now that he has martyr status there will be those who will attack us because of it. Also, we might have found out more about his ties to the BFEE and the Saudis complicity in the schemes of the Bush administration. That opportunity is gone forever. It was the same with Hitler. The allies wanted Hitler alive to put him on trial for his crimes for all the world to see at Nuremberg. Hitler knew that and killed himself as did some of his top henchmen. I'm sure Osama bin Laden had similar thoughts and probably couldn't have been taken alive.

I advise him to turn himself in on the warrant. I do not advise him to hide out for 10 years in an armed compound and shoot it out with the authorities. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

That particular rather important detail in the official story has been recalled for repairs.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1025363

and I do mean EVERYONE, and even one person drew--well, guess what happens to drug dealers who do that.

not that there wasn't a 40 minute firefight. If comes to pass that no one was shooting back and these guys just went in and slaughtered a group of unarmed people trying to surrender, I'd have a problem with that, even for bin Laden, even for Hitler. I certainly haven't seen that reported anywhere.

I submit that Mr. bL CHOSE not to go to trial of his own volition; he had the option of surrendering and he had to have known the consequences of not doing so.

I'm also astonished at the ignorance of how the whole thing works.

Of course he preferred death to a trial. But it's not up to him.

He shoulda been shot in the face by SEALS and dumped in the ocean. And by the order of a Democratic BADASS President who held the course and found the mothafucker? That's exactly what happened.

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

you chose to make an ugly, ignorant attack.

The writing style was not a problem, it was the content of the message itself that drew my criticism.

- B

edited to remove snark

apparently the mods agreed with you... B-)

arguments for humself and future presidents.
He has valiadated and given his stamp of approval to enhanced interrogation techniques (water-boarding),
secret prisons, unlimited detainment of firiegn nationals in Git-Mo, assasinations and so much of what he accused the Bush admin of doing. The bar has been lowered to wear anyone (and any country) can hop over it.

This will have long term ramifications.

I am sorry you feel that way, truly I am. The simple fact of the matter is we eat our own and I am not going to play into that mentality.

I realize it takes nuance when it comes to support of President Obama and I've stayed away from here because I haven't approved of him lately-

but on this subject? I am 100% behind the man, proud of the man and proud of our military. All this other stuff you guys are trying to make it into is just...well it's bullshit.

We got this right and I will not participate in the tearing down of President Obama over this. In my opinion it is a WONDERFUL thing the President accomplished, period.

We disagree, let's just leave it at that.

achievement. But I always have had a proclivity to look into the future and the future is not that far off. I am just asking myself if we have surrendered a license to cast moral pronouncements on the Repugs once they are back in executuve power. I mean, how to we condemn torture when we took advantage of it to gather information to catch Osama.

One could always say that he only made use of what was already there when he took office and there might be some solice in that. Yet, there is a strong hint of validation when one makes use of information obtained though illegal and immoral means.

But I won't pursue it any longer and you are so very right.

I truly should apologize for raining on the parade of the free world.

man! you sound so smug and proud of yourself for it too!

I wish the world were fulla rainbows and ponies too. It isn't and it never will be.

This is Good, in a big way. If you wanna buy into the meme that 8,9 yrs after the fact, torture played any role whatsoever in the killing of Bin Laden and make that the issue? Be my guest.

As for me, I see the cold hard reality of the world that we live in and I'll take the good where I can get it. My 'worry' is far more for the every day lives of Americans than it will ever be for some terrorist and the implications surrounding his demise.

Good Riddance to the bastard, I hope it was painful and I wouldn't change a thing about the way it went down. May it help President Obama in his re election so that we have a chance at restoring the Supreme Court.

I am not so sure killing was a good idea. They should've used tasers.

What we've done since 9-11 is walk back Nuremberg.

Democrats & republicans skipping down the merry road to a kind of tyranny.

All the more so because of the incredible difficulty it would present security-wise. To go through with that would have spoken volumes about us and our beliefs. It would have said we're civilized, which we're not, so I guess the right choice was made...

This was the best possible outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

I don't care about circuses, conveniences, security, etc. Our justice system should be entirely free of those kind of concerns and should be able to do whatever it takes to hold a trial. If not Bin Laden(which I haven't taken a position on because I don't know all the facts), it will be someone else up for an extra-judicial execution with that kind of thinking.

not the least of which was sending combat forces into a non-hostile country without their permission.

I think that under the circumstances, however, it was justified. The closest analogue might be pirating. If a host country does not or cannot prevent pirates from residing in and launching raids from their territory, than they can't really object to the target of pirate attacks seeking them out. And the pirates, who are effectively stateless, don't really have the same rights as a citizen of a sovereign state.

Yep

:shrug: Guess that would not have been profitable and certainly not politically viable.


Better to invade two Countries for bullshit reasons.

Well so long as the American people can now chant...
USA! USA! USA!

It's all good!



:puke:

This man personally ordered the attacks on innocent people all over the world, and he NEVER showed one scent of remorse. Plus he was crazy enough to engage in a firefight against the Navy SEALS. So in my opinion, the bullet in the head was the trial and verdict.

Years and years of trials. No thanks. Over and done with. He's fish food.

Killing him means we condone assassination. We can expect more.

Not killing him opened the door to a hostage situation.

I know what I wanted. And I still say killing him was wrong. But the logic involved goes over almost everyone's emotional heads.

He would have killed himself in his cell rather than let himself be judged by the 'Great Satan'. And if the guards had placed him on suicide watch with only a tear-proof smock to wear and kept him in solitary confinement, people here would cry out that he was being tortured.

Who would have paid for that circus? Who would have paid to keep that monster behind bars for the rest of his life?



Gang leaders usually manage to run things from prison. So, there's that.