Let's impeach the president.

[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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You should run for office.

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism...I'm not electable

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism...I'm not electable

Do agnostic->atheists believe in thread hell?

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism...I'm not electable

Nope.



lol
Just joking man. peace

[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).

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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).

Trials of any kind of prisoners of war by the arresting country are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, including miliary tribunials of the arresting county. Such trials have to be conducted by neutral countries.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Trials of any kind of prisoners of war by the arresting country are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, including miliary tribunials of the arresting county. Such trials have to be conducted by neutral countries.

"Prisoner of war" is a term of art. POW status is not afforded to unlawful enemy combatants. Once a person is deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, they are denied POW privileges (e.g., the right to a trial by a neutral country). Under U.S. law (which, by the way, governs U.S. court proceedings), the President is delegated the broad authority to determine whether someone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq is an unlawful enemy combatant. Whether you disagree with U.S. law or not, it is what it is and the detention and trial of unlawful enemy combatants captured in Iraq or Afghanistan is not illegal. Air America radio might say otherwise, but they're simply wrong.

[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

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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

OK, if we are gonna play the "What if" game, then lets say that Clinton does take out OBL. What about the infamous "#2" guy? I mean just because you take out OBL does that mean the "cause" is dead? If George Washington was caught by the red coats, does that mean that the American Revolution "cause" is dead? I am in no way comparing OBL and the father of our country, all I am saying is that if you have a group of people that believe deeply in a "cause" then it will be very difficult to stop it....

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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

Like others said, hindsight is 20/20. Do you honestly believe that if Clinton knew then what he knows now he wouldn't have gone after him? Do you think if he knew that he would be responsible for 9/11 and become a major figure in a terror organization he still wouldn't have done something?