Michael Moore thinks Osama Bin Laden deserved a trial

[Lotus]

^ The point is that, military or not, the Constitution is the Constitution. Military action, the feelings of victims, heinousness of crimes, grandstanding at a trial, etc., are not reasons to throw the Constitution out of the window.

Once people begin to ignore the Constitution, as many in this thread have, you have to wonder if or when ignoring the Constitution will end.

Bin Laden had a Constitutional right to a trial. Period.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

^ The point is that, military or not, the Constitution is the Constitution. Military action, the feelings of victims, heinousness of crimes, grandstanding at a trial, etc., are not reasons to throw the Constitution out of the window.

Once people begin to ignore the Constitution, as many in this thread have, you have to wonder if or when ignoring the Constitution will end.

Bin Laden had a Constitutional right to a trial. Period.

Horsehockey!
Bin Laden wasn't an American, we are at war......it doesn't apply to him. How in the world could you validate him getting the benefit of our Constitution?
And by that rationale we could never kill anyone on the battlefield, we'd have to capture all of them and put them on trial.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Horsehockey!
Bin Laden wasn't an American, we are at war......it doesn't apply to him. How in the world could you validate him getting the benefit of our Constitution?
And by that rationale we could never kill anyone on the battlefield, we'd have to capture all of them and put them on trial.

No.

The Constitution does not have an exception for citizenship. If you commit a crime in the United States (9/11 happened here, not in Afghanistan), you have a right to a trial, regardless of your nationality. That is what the Constitution says. I suggest that you re-read your Bill of Rights.

Further, on 9/11/01, there was no declared war against al-Qaeda. Military action happened after that. Before you start talking about war as a context, you need to fix your timeline.

[Alvin Walton]

Ok, I'm not a BOR expert.
However I fail to understand how the USA Const. applies to every asshole on the whole globe. It was written for the USA. If anyone should request a trial for him it should be Saudi Arabia.


Some of you guys are too busy hugging the tree to realize that Bin Laden did not surrender to us. He shot at us whether at 9/11 or in his compound in Pakistan.
Its a war.
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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Ok, I'm not a BOR expert.
However I fail to understand how the USA Const. applies to every asshole on the whole globe. It was written for the USA. If anyone should request a trial for him it should be Saudi Arabia.


Some of you guys are too busy hugging the tree to realize that Bin Laden did not surrender to us. He shot at us whether at 9/11 or in his compound in Pakistan.
Its a war.
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.

1) The Constitution does not apply to every "asshole" on the planet, as indicated by CRed's post. However, it does apply to crimes committed in the USA. 9/11 happened in the USA. So the Constitution applies.

2) Of course bin Laden did not surrender. He was a fugitive from the law and got shot while resisting arrest. Happens all the time. I shed no tears that this happened. But no here has argued against this. The question on the table, the question that Moore raised, was whether bin Laden deserved a trial if he had been brought in alive. And the Constitution says "yes" to this question.

3) I'm not hugging a tree. I'm defending the US Constitution from those who would prefer to ignore it.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Further, on 9/11/01, there was no declared war against al-Qaeda. Military action happened after that.

'The Base' declared war on us, Dar al islam declared war on Dar al Harb even before that. Timeline?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

'The Base' declared war on us, Dar al islam declared war on Dar al Harb even before that. Timeline?

On 9/11/01 we had not declared war on al-Qaeda or on Afghanistan. By American standards, we were not at war. Therefore hiding behind "war" arguments to suspend the Constitution, as was argued above, would not be legally justifiable in terms of prosecuting a crime which happened on 9/11/01.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

No.

The Constitution does not have an exception for citizenship. If you commit a crime in the United States (9/11 happened here, not in Afghanistan), you have a right to a trial, regardless of your nationality. That is what the Constitution says. I suggest that you re-read your Bill of Rights.

Further, on 9/11/01, there was no declared war against al-Qaeda. Military action happened after that. Before you start talking about war as a context, you need to fix your timeline.

Lotus,

Typically your arguments are solid, and I don't really have a stance on Bin Laden either way, but I think you are off base on the exception for citizenship. The Pre-amble states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Here it is pretty definitive that the Constitution was and is designed to primarily to protect US citizens.

Now in Article 3 you might read :

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

and use this as saying that it doesn't note citizenship, but Amendment 11, which changes an original part of Article 3 reads:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

So the Judicial powers do acknowledge the different citizenships of individuals.

Finally, you may solely be looking at Amendment 5:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

but the key here is that as an Amendment to the original Constitution, no state, or citizen of any state, could claim it's right without first acknowledging to be subject to the laws and rules laid down in the Constitution itself. I think it is fairly safe to say that Bin Laden did not acknowledge himself to be subject to the US Constitution, thus he could not seek the protection of the Amendments to that document.

(i am sure this can get argued in excess when it comes to illegal immigrants etc, but I am only speaking to whether a non-citizen not on US soil, nor making any claims to US citizenship and law could somehow claim that we must offer them the protection of our Bill of Rights, and the Constitution they amend)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Lotus,

Typically your arguments are solid, and I don't really have a stance on Bin Laden either way, but I think you are off base on the exception for citizenship. The Pre-amble states:


Here it is pretty definitive that the Constitution was and is designed to primarily to protect US citizens.

Now in Article 3 you might read :
and use this as saying that it doesn't note citizenship, but Amendment 11, which changes an original part of Article 3 reads:
So the Judicial powers do acknowledge the different citizenships of individuals.

Finally, you may solely be looking at Amendment 5:
but the key here is that as an Amendment to the original Constitution, no state, or citizen of any state, could claim it's right without first acknowledging to be subject to the laws and rules laid down in the Constitution itself. I think it is fairly safe to say that Bin Laden did not acknowledge himself to be subject to the US Constitution, thus he could not seek the protection of the Amendments to that document.

(i am sure this can get argued in excess when it comes to illegal immigrants etc, but I am only speaking to whether a non-citizen not on US soil, nor making any claims to US citizenship and law could somehow claim that we must offer them the protection of our Bill of Rights, and the Constitution they amend)

Excellent thoughtful post CRed. I must disagree with your interpretations, though. My understanding of the passage from Amendment 11 which you produced is that it was designed to speak against the idea that the Constitution can be applied in other countries. We can't apply the Constitution in France. But 9/11 was a crime committed in this country so that clause does not apply.

As for bin Laden's assent to governance by the Constitution, things do not work that way. Otherwise any foreigner could come to the USA, break federal law, and claim "You can't try me because I don't assent to your Constitution." Likewise, when I take one of my trips to India, I am subject to Indian law, including the Indian constitution, regardless of my nationality. For bin Laden, his assent was not required since he committed his crime on US soil.

Bin Laden's crime of 9/11 was committed on USA soil. This means that USA law definitely applied, including Constitutional law.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Excellent thoughtful post CRed. I must disagree with your interpretations, though. My understanding of the passage from Amendment 11 which you produced is that it was designed to speak against the idea that the Constitution can be applied in other countries. We can't apply the Constitution in France. But 9/11 was a crime committed in this country so that clause does not apply.

As for bin Laden's assent to governance by the Constitution, things do not work that way. Otherwise any foreigner could come to the USA, break federal law, and claim "You can't try me because I don't assent to your Constitution." Likewise, when I take one of my trips to India, I am subject to Indian law, including the Indian constitution, regardless of my nationality. For bin Laden, his assent was not required since he committed his crime on US soil.

Bin Laden's crime of 9/11 was committed on USA soil. This means that USA law definitely applied, including Constitutional law.

I look at it more like this: if a violation occurs against US laws, the US certainly has the prerogative to take action in accordance with the Constitution, and if the violation is committed by a US citizen, it has a duty to give that citizen their due process rights. However, if the violation occurs in a military or terrorist action, than the US has the option, as long as it is within international agreements, not to accord non-citizens those same rights. I think that, just as we publicly disavow clandestine acts to kill or topple regimes, you can make the argument that the US acted wrongly here. However, in a point of matter of "reality" there was just no way that the US was going to risk any type of lengthy legal maneuverings to take place with Bin Laden at the center.

It really comes down to (and yea this is great foreign policy) all is fair in love and war. Once Bin Laden took aim at the US, he wrote his own obituary rightly or wrongly

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Excellent thoughtful post CRed. I must disagree with your interpretations, though. My understanding of the passage from Amendment 11 which you produced is that it was designed to speak against the idea that the Constitution can be applied in other countries. We can't apply the Constitution in France. But 9/11 was a crime committed in this country so that clause does not apply.

As for bin Laden's assent to governance by the Constitution, things do not work that way. Otherwise any foreigner could come to the USA, break federal law, and claim "You can't try me because I don't assent to your Constitution." Likewise, when I take one of my trips to India, I am subject to Indian law, including the Indian constitution, regardless of my nationality. For bin Laden, his assent was not required since he committed his crime on US soil.

Bin Laden's crime of 9/11 was committed on USA soil. This means that USA law definitely applied, including Constitutional law.

Again, I think you make good arguments Lotus, but I still believe that you are off the mark a bit.

When you take a trip to India, I imagine you get a passport, and enter the country on some sort of visa. When you do the paperwork for those documents you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Indian government. You acknowledge that you will be under their laws. Likewise, when US troops deploy, in a peaceful environment, they abide in those countries under agreements between countries. Bin Laden had no thought of acknowledging the US government's authority, or abiding by our laws, when he planned the attacks on our country and our troops overseas.

You reference the Nazi war trials, but those were not held under US jurisdiction, but world governing bodies. They certainly were not given the due process that our justice would have required. So that argument is slightly off base.

Maybe I have seen a skewed side of the question, because of the fait accompli of Bin Laden's death. If the Seals had in fact captured and brought him here, then yes he would have received a trial or military tribunal, as the bombings of 9/11 certainly were a well planned attack against the presence of the US, and the attack on the Pentagon specifically gave the military a reason to handle the justice under our constitution (the sections I cited earlier referenced them.)

Let me put it this way. A man robs a bank, killing two tellers along the way. He is a US citizen. He will get his day in trial when he is captured. As the police make their way in to arrest him, he pulls a gun, the police shoot, he dies. Did he deserve a trial, no - because he did not give himself over to the authorities, and the authorities used justified force in bringing him in to go before the court. Bin Laden may have gotten the benefits of the US judicial process had he at any point turned himself over but he did not, and was shot. Therefore he doesn't get that judicial process priviledge.

For Michael Moore to say that he deserved a trial implies that he would not have been given one if he had been brought in to the country, but if you make a special military team find you in the middle of the night, you aren't given that benefit of the doubt.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Again, I think you make good arguments Lotus, but I still believe that you are off the mark a bit.

When you take a trip to India, I imagine you get a passport, and enter the country on some sort of visa. When you do the paperwork for those documents you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Indian government. You acknowledge that you will be under their laws. Likewise, when US troops deploy, in a peaceful environment, they abide in those countries under agreements between countries. Bin Laden had no thought of acknowledging the US government's authority, or abiding by our laws, when he planned the attacks on our country and our troops overseas.

You reference the Nazi war trials, but those were not held under US jurisdiction, but world governing bodies. They certainly were not given the due process that our justice would have required. So that argument is slightly off base.

Maybe I have seen a skewed side of the question, because of the fait accompli of Bin Laden's death. If the Seals had in fact captured and brought him here, then yes he would have received a trial or military tribunal, as the bombings of 9/11 certainly were a well planned attack against the presence of the US, and the attack on the Pentagon specifically gave the military a reason to handle the justice under our constitution (the sections I cited earlier referenced them.)

Let me put it this way. A man robs a bank, killing two tellers along the way. He is a US citizen. He will get his day in trial when he is captured. As the police make their way in to arrest him, he pulls a gun, the police shoot, he dies. Did he deserve a trial, no - because he did not give himself over to the authorities, and the authorities used justified force in bringing him in to go before the court. Bin Laden may have gotten the benefits of the US judicial process had he at any point turned himself over but he did not, and was shot. Therefore he doesn't get that judicial process priviledge.

For Michael Moore to say that he deserved a trial implies that he would not have been given one if he had been brought in to the country, but if you make a special military team find you in the middle of the night, you aren't given that benefit of the doubt.

You and I are mostly in agreement.

As for the part about the Seals, I agree! That's what I've been arguing!

As for the Nuremburg trials, you are correct that they were not under purely US jurisdiction and did not operate by exactly the same standards as US trials. That said, the reason why there were trials at all (rather than just summary executions) was because in most of the Allied countries, justice is defined by a trial, so that model was followed (the Russians just had to bend to the wills of others). So the Nuremburg trials still exhibited the American ideal that there can be no justice without a trial.

As for the India example, if I mastermind an attack on India from my couch here, you can be sure that India will hold me to Indian standards of justice, just as they are currently doing to some Pakistani terrorists who attacked them. The operative principle is that if a crime is committed, the laws of that country are in effect, whether the criminal assents to those laws or not. This is how the international legal system works; this is why we have things like extradition. Put differently, it happens all the time that foreigners commit crimes in the USA, even from abroad in terms of things like email scams, and they are given trials, lawyers, etc., not summarily shot by firing squads or something like that. Our Constitution operates for foreigners, within our borders or not, every day.

As for your bank robbery example, the bank robber still deserves a trial according to the Constitution. But, like bin Laden, he won't get one because he died in the apprehension attempt. And again, just to be clear, I have no problem with the fact that the Seals sent bin Laden to a watery grave.