Let's impeach the president.

[dmek25]

there wasn't anything to prove the connection between the 2. he got what he wanted, Hussein. he just made it easier to sell to the American people. i would have looked at Geo. Bush totally different if he would have invaded Afghanistan, and captured Bin Laden. i think history would have, too

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there wasn't anything to prove the connection between the 2. he got what he wanted, Hussein. he just made it easier to sell to the American people. i would have looked at Geo. Bush totally different if he would have invaded Afghanistan, and captured Bin Laden. i think history would have, too

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

1998 was the time when the inspectors were being kicked out of Iraq and Saddam was making noise. After the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Gen. Richard A. Clarke, then part of team Clinton's counter-terrorism staff, made some noise about Saddam offering Bin Laden asylum. Nothing came of Richard's comments and the enforcement of the Iraq no-fly-zone was stepped up after Saddam foolishly said he wouldn't respect the no-fly-zone.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

Ibuprophen factory. August, 1998. Same week or day he was deposed by Starr's lawyers, I think.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

True, but I think he had said there was a connection regardless. And he bombed that ibuprofen factory as 70chip pointed out. And Saden made some good point as well. (too lazy to scroll to find it)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

You should run for office.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

You definately make some interesting points. I definately agree that law enforcement actions against individuals caught in the U.S. should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal trials. I don't know, however, whether the war on terrorism against individuals overseas is a law enforcement action. The "war on terrorism" is both a law enforcement action and a war.

Also, the military tribunals are nothing new as FDR did them back in WWII - a much more conventional war. Moreover, they are okay with the Supreme Court (the details may need to be worked out in a new case, but they're generally okay with the High Court).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

He had prior to then declared war against us and we knew that he was forming a terror organization but I guess that was not enough. Thats is also why Sudan kicked him out of their counry and he went to Afganistan
About.com: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html