Michael Moore thinks Osama Bin Laden deserved a trial

[RedskinRat]

Finally! A really contentious topic. Yay!

'Vanquish' isn't just the best car in the world, it's what should be done to your enemy.

[hooskins]

Hey Alvin, you are right. I actually disagreed with your position but since you used bold, caps, red text you have definitely swayed my opinion.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Hey Alvin, you are right. I actually disagreed with your position but since you used bold, caps, red text you have definitely swayed my opinion.

Thanks honey.
Glad to know I converted another tree hugger.

[SmootSmack]

The founding fathers created a nice framework for our country with the drafting of the Constitution. However, time and time again our country's leaders have ignored specific elements within the Constitution...and we're better for it.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The founding fathers created a nice framework for our country with the drafting of the Constitution. However, time and time again our country's leaders have ignored specific elements within the Constitution...and we're better for it.

I can respect this argument because it recognizes Constitutional provisions rather than completely overlooking them.

But it is a dangerous argument, given that the Constitution protects us from all sorts of possible ugliness.

The Nazis killed many more Americans than bin Laden did. Yet Nazi criminals got trials. Have we become so uncivilized since 1945 that we can no longer live up to our Constitutional ideals of justice by trial?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I can respect this argument because it recognizes Constitutional provisions rather than completely overlooking them.

But it is a dangerous argument, given that the Constitution protects us from all sorts of possible ugliness.

The Nazis killed many more Americans than bin Laden did. Yet Nazi criminals got trials. Have we become so uncivilized since 1945 that we can no longer live up to our Constitutional ideals of justice by trial?

The ones we hired didn't get trials......

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I can respect this argument because it recognizes Constitutional provisions rather than completely overlooking them.

But it is a dangerous argument, given that the Constitution protects us from all sorts of possible ugliness.

The Nazis killed many more Americans than bin Laden did. Yet Nazi criminals got trials. Have we become so uncivilized since 1945 that we can no longer live up to our Constitutional ideals of justice by trial?

Its not 1945 anymore.
Things are different and this is a totally different opponent.... a religious fanatical one.
Comparing Bin Laden to the Nazis is ridiculous.
Put him on trial and you give the Islamic media a freaking heyday and you create X amount more martyrs, wannabes, fanatics etc etc.
Its was a not an uncivilzed act, it was an act of common sense.
Bin Laden was an unlawful combatant which means he doesnt qualify for POW status which means he doesnt get a trial.

[hooskins]

Definitely a slippery slope when you start selectively applying the principles of the Constitution.

[SmootSmack]

Al Qaeda members have been and will be tried all around the world, including here. I'm not sure why we keep comparing Bin Laden's singular death to multiple Nazi trials

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Al Qaeda members have been and will be tried all around the world, including here. I'm not sure why we keep comparing Bin Laden's singular death to multiple Nazi trials

I used the Nazis as an example that heinousness of crimes or controversies of trials are not reasons to deny Constitutional justice. Of course you are correct about the singular/multiple thing.

But you highlight an important point: several posts above describe bin Laden's 9/11 act as primarily a military act. For what country's army was he fighting? None. And we had not declared war. Although warfare certainly ensued later, on 9/11/01 bin Laden's act was a crime. So standards of criminal justice apply.

I continue to be aghast at how readily people here (not you Smootsmack) are so willing to make excuses to throw out the US Constitution. It seems we are less civilized than we were in 1945.

[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.

[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.

[Hog1]

I have not read the entire transcripts of the raid, but I think I must ask.
Did OBL make an attempt to surrender that was denied and then summarily executed?

[budw38]

If OSL wanted a trial , he should have turned himself in , he chose to run , hide , give orders to kill Americans all over the world , and when we showed up at his doorstep , he hid behind his women like the coward he ... was . Could care a less about how it ended for him , if we put the next 1,000 Al Queada members on trail or kill them makes no difference to me , they started it , we are going to end it ( hopefully sooner than later ) for the better of all people .