Michael Moore thinks Osama Bin Laden deserved a trial

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

What Bin Laden did was not a crime, it was an act of war....he gets no trial, enemy combatants don't get a trial. (Is there an echo in here?)

I'm amused that someone who should know how many women, children and civilians Bin Laden killed keeps using the word uncivilized when referring to the USA in a Bin laden discussion.

1) On what basis do you decree that it was an act of war and not a crime? He acted for no country's army. And since when is murder not a crime? And notice that his simple declaration is not enough on this point. If I murder someone today and say that I did it because I am "at war," the cops will lock me up just the same. Tell me why his murderous act was not criminal.

2) In your second paragraph you argue irrationally. Certainly bin Laden was uncivilized - no one here will argue to the contrary. But it is possible that some of us are making an uncivilized argument as well.

Let me put my argument differently: bin Laden wished to destroy the United States. If we then treated him in a way which abrogates our our Constitution, our founding document and the ultimate basis for our law and society, then to a certain extent bin Laden wins. If we denied a trial as specified by our Constitution, then he would have died, but so would our American values and ideals.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

1) On what basis do you decree that it was an act of war and not a crime? He acted for no country's army. And since when is murder not a crime? And notice that his simple declaration is not enough on this point. If I murder someone today and say that I did it because I am "at war," the cops will lock me up just the same. Tell me why his murderous act was not criminal.

2) In your second paragraph you argue irrationally. Certainly bin Laden was uncivilized - no one here will argue to the contrary. But it is possible that some of us are making an uncivilized argument as well.

Let me put my argument differently: bin Laden wished to destroy the United States. If we then treated him in a way which abrogates our our Constitution, our founding document and the ultimate basis for our law and society, then to a certain extent bin Laden wins. If we denied a trial as specified by our Constitution, then he would have died, but so would our American values and ideals.

You're splitting hairs.....big time.
I'm done with this thread.
If you want to throw common sense to the wind and coddle guys like Bin Laden go ahead.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

You're splitting hairs.....big time.
I'm done with this thread.
If you want to throw common sense to the wind and coddle guys like Bin Laden go ahead.

I'm not sure how calling murder a crime is "splitting hairs."

I'm not sure how being glad that bin Laden is dead is "coddling" him.

I'm not sure how following the Constitution is throwing "common sense to the wind."

But whatever.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

A trial would have been messy and would have dug up a lot of old wounds,

But "remembering 9/11" every year doesn't dig up old wounds?

Originally Posted by cpayne5

KSM is alive. We captured him in 2003 and he's been sitting in a jail cell ever since.
.

Thanks for the correction. Couldn't remember if he was a capture or kill.

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

You kill the bad guys. That's how you win.
Did you think he would have come quietly if we asked him?
The US military went to kill Bin Laden beacuse its a WAR.
Its not the FBI rounding up an illegal Cuban kid.

Who deems who the bad guys are? The government? The same people that lie to you on a consistent basis? Also, what war? Only congress can declare war and the last time I checked, they haven't done so.



Listen, I'm all for offing the bad guy when necessary. In fact, I support the death penalty 100% when it can be proved without a shadow of doubt. Such as cases like this (as well as Bin Laden).

Survivor testifies again about Conn. home invasion - Yahoo! News


I have no problem with the Seal team taking him out, as I'm sure he didn't go down without a fight. That said, you don't ignore Constitutional (and International) rights just because you think he doesn't deserve it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

But "remembering 9/11" every year doesn't dig up old wounds?

Of course it does, but a trial would have been emotional on a different level.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

But "remembering 9/11" every year doesn't dig up old wounds?




Thanks for the correction. Couldn't remember if he was a capture or kill.





Who deems who the bad guys are? The government? The same people that lie to you on a consistent basis? Also, what war? Only congress can declare war and the last time I checked, they haven't done so.



Listen, I'm all for offing the bad guy when necessary. In fact, I support the death penalty 100% when it can be proved without a shadow of doubt. Such as cases like this (as well as Bin Laden).

Survivor testifies again about Conn. home invasion - Yahoo! News


I have no problem with the Seal team taking him out, as I'm sure he didn't go down without a fight. That said, you don't ignore Constitutional (and International) rights just because you think he doesn't deserve it.

When someone has stated that they are the master mind behind killing thousands of Americans he lost any and all Constitutional or International rights. If you don't remember Bin Laden declared war on us so he got waht he asked for. Its not really that hard. He had the chance to surrender but ran until he died.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

When someone has stated that they are the master mind behind killing thousands of Americans he lost any and all Constitutional or International rights. If you don't remember Bin Laden declared war on us so he got waht he asked for. Its not really that hard. He had the chance to surrender but ran until he died.

Got a quote stating that he claimed to be the master mind? I think that part has already been discussed. (clue: he wasn't the mastermind) I think Bin Laden has been QUITE clear about his beef with the US is that military bases are on their soil. Can you blame him? Would you sit around and let China or North Korea have a military base here?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Also, what war? Only congress can declare war and the last time I checked, they haven't done so.

The enemy can (and did) declare war on us, just because we don't 'declare war back' doesn't mean they are any less vociferous in their engagement.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The enemy can (and did) declare war on us, just because we don't 'declare war back' doesn't mean they are any less vociferous in their engagement.

You mean like that war on drugs?