Bin Laden not getting a trial, and Bradley Manning not getting one are two sides of the same coin.

In some fairy tale world one might be able to pick and choose which people are "worthy of a trial" and which are "monsters that simply should be put down" and still end up with an intact legal system. But in the real world it is usually either you believe in rule of law, or you don't.

Kind of with the death penalty: If you make exceptions to your opposition to it, then you are not against it.

The reality is that the US has dealt with much bigger "monsters" than Osama Bin Laden in the past. OBL was a small fish to some of the people that were tried in Nuremberg. His "body count" was in the thousands, while theirs was in the millions. And yet, back then it was decided that the best thing to do with these "monsters" was not to "drag them to the back yard and shoot them in the head", but to have a court case where all the evidence against them was recounted.

Had Hitler not committed suicide, it is likely that he would have been also captured and put on trial, rather than "shot on sight", given he had survived to the end phases of the war where his military was no longer functional.

The reason why this was done was not because "they deserved a trial", but because it was decided that it was in the best interest of mankind to establish a precedent that a system of law stretching beyond national borders can exist. The Nuremberg trials are rightfully viewed as the birth of international law.

That said, of course we currently don't know for certain what exactly happened at the OBL compound, but if the accounts are true that OBL was unarmed and not resisting, and still was shot, this would certainly not have gained the approval of, say, FDR. And some of the arguments brought forth in defense of this, such as, we wouldn't be able to give him a fair trial anyway, would have him and his peers turning in their graves.

One committed war crimes; the other *exposed* them.

...absurd.

My only variation is I don't consider OBL crime's to be "war" crimes. His attacks should have been treated as criminal acts, not acts of war.

And "body count" is how it works?

And OBL did not resist? The accounts I read say he looked into the hallway and saw the seal team approaching and then retreated back into the room. Was he getting a weapon, or maybe an IED ... and how would one know? We do know that he told his followers that he would never be taken alive. I'm going to trust the seal team on this one.

And then Manning ... he's not going to get a trial? Really? I haven't heard that before. When was that decision announced?

law or not." Yeah that's soooooo clear cut. I guess if someone does't agree with a person's intrepretation on what rule of law means, then he doesn't believe in the rule of law.

Manning being denied a trial. Can I get a link for that please.

I don't think you have a clue as to who FDR was. Furthermore, Manning will certainly get a trial- a military one, which as he's in the military is appropriate.

Not the best argument you could make.

Ok FDR wasn't the best example.

the comparison between Osama's demise and Manning's treatment really is a poor one.

Manning is in jail without a trial. He is effectively serving time, for which he has not been convicted. He may have already spent years in jail before any trial occurs.

and what happened to bin-Laden really has nothing to do with the legal system.

"OBL was unarmed and not resisting, and still was shot," I don't give the account of a daughter who just lost a Brother and a Father and whose Mom took lead in the leg much credibility.

Is under the jurisdiction of civil law or military law? It seems to me that identical actions are handled quite differently under civil vs military law.

For example, if I am tired and want to go home early, I just leave. Maybe for a week or a month. In the civilian world, my actions might get me fired. In the military, my actions might get me tossed in the slammer.

Manning made a choice to do some things with very serious consequences that he should have recognized when he did them.

The legal and moral bankruptcy goes hand in hand with the economic bankrupting of the U.S., of course.

Unfortunately, we're still playing the game by their rules. The only way to change that is to finally bring accountability to the surviving terrorists and war criminals among us.