Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hello everybody,

In light of the latest Supreme Court decision where the detainees at Gitmo have a right to a hearing wouldn't Bin Laden be innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, say we capture Bin Laden, isn't he given this right to a hearing? And if it is to be a fair hearing wouldn't he have to be innocent until proven guilty?

And doesn't this undercut many opponents of the Iraq war that say that we should be going after (and indeed trying to kill) Bin Laden instead of going to Iraq?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not if we kill him on sight as planned.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course he's innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to live in a country where the president or chairman could declare you guilty without a trial? Then move to China. Or Cuba. Or North Korea.

 

[kai]

Of course he's innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to live in a country where the president or chairman could declare you guilty without a trial? Then move to China. Or Cuba. Or North Korea.

i agree, although taking him alive is going to be difficult, if he is capured then he must stand trial.

 

[Sunstone]

And doesn't this undercut many opponents of the Iraq war that say that we should be going after (and indeed trying to kill) Bin Laden instead of going to Iraq?

How do you figure that?

 

[NoahideHiker]

Bin Ladin hates Bush so ergo not only is he innocent he is a hero. [sarcasm]

Personally when someone says, "I am the one who fly the planes into the WTC and I am declaring war on America.", I tend to take them at there word. Fine, we are at war. See you on the battlefield. Our troops have found educational material in Iraq that teach how to use our legal system and the media against us.

Anyone who thinks we can win this war by treating it like a murder trial is just fooling themselves.

 

[Sunstone]

Bin Ladin hates Bush so ergo not only is he innocent he is a hero. [sarcasm]

Personally when someone says, "I am the one who fly the planes into the WTC and I am declaring war on America.", I tend to take them at there word. Fine, we are at war. See you on the battlefield. Our troops have found educational material in Iraq that teach how to use our legal system and the media against us.

Anyone who thinks we can win this war by treating it like a murder trial is just fooling themselves.

Oh bunk. That's no better than Fox propaganda. You can do better than that. Anyone who thinks we can win by caving into the hysteria of those of us who demand security more than the rule of law is just fooling themselves.

 

[Smoke]

Hello everybody,

In light of the latest Supreme Court decision where the detainees at Gitmo have a right to a hearing wouldn't Bin Laden be innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, say we capture Bin Laden, isn't he given this right to a hearing? And if it is to be a fair hearing wouldn't he have to be innocent until proven guilty?

And doesn't this undercut many opponents of the Iraq war that say that we should be going after (and indeed trying to kill) Bin Laden instead of going to Iraq?

What's the problem? Do you think there's a lack of evidence to show that he's guilty?

 

[Smoke]

Yet, you feel free to liken me to a rapid animal.

A gazelle, perhaps?

 

[Sunstone]

A gazelle, perhaps?

My thoughts, precisely! And I resent the implication I mow my lawn by eating it.

 

[Troublemane]

I think the Supreme Court decision is moot, as they have no jurisdiction outside US, and have absolutely no authority over the military. They may as well have declared all the prisoners not guilty, it would not have made a difference. I think its just another example of judges trying to be more than mere interpreters of law.:angel2:

 

[Smoke]

I think the Supreme Court decision is moot, as they have no jurisdiction outside US, and have absolutely no authority over the military.

Why do you imagine that the president has jurisdiction outside the US but the Supreme Court doesn't? And if, as the Bush administration claimed, the courts have no authority over the matter because Cuba ultimately has jurisdiction over Guantanamo, does that mean the detainees are subject to Cuban law? Is Guantanamo subject to the jurisdiction of the Cuban courts?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

However, the USA is at war, and bin Laden is an undisputed enemy soldier. In war, we don't put enemy soldiers on trial before we kill them.

It is just a bit insane that we're starting to treat foreign enemies of the state as innocent citizens.

 

[kai]

if we catch him he stands trial whats the problem? if he gets killed in action whats the problem?

in fact if he gets captured there is a problem, he will probably be released because he wouldn't be seen to get a fair trial. so if i was him i would hand myself in , stand trial claim no court in the land would give me a fair trial and sue the US for harassment, what the problem?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

if we catch him he stands trial whats the problem?

It would be impossible to prove to the world that it's not a show trial if it's done by the USA, and no other civilized country would give him the death sentence.

if he gets killed in action whats the problem?

No complaints here...

 

[Smoke]

However, the USA is at war, and bin Laden is an undisputed enemy soldier. In war, we don't put enemy soldiers on trial before we kill them.

Nor do we, at least in theory, slaughter them indiscriminately when we can capture them, or after capturing them.

It is just a bit insane that we're starting to treat foreign enemies of the state as innocent citizens.

Since we're in an undeclared war on an abstract noun, it's not always easy to tell who the enemy is. The Bush administration policy that filled Guantanamo by offering a bounty of up to $5,000 and then taking the word of anybody who dragged somebody in that the person was a terrorist wasn't a very sound way of finding out, either. Nor have the tribunals and commissions set up by the administration been much help, since they've been arbitrary and slipshod in the extreme. One detainee's file was mistakenly declassified, allowing the Washington Post to get a look at it before it was re-classified. It contained about 100 pages of documentation showing that nobody anywhere had ever found any evidence at all that he had any involvement with terrorist activities; nevertheless, he was found to be an enemy combatant on the basis of an unsigned memo that was added to the file just before his hearing.

It's not unpatriotic to point out that this nonsense is not only unjust but counter-productive, since it wastes time and resources that could be better spent actually looking out for our security and interests. On the contrary, it's the supporters of this ******** who are harming our interests.

 

[Dunemeister]

However, the USA is at war, and bin Laden is an undisputed enemy soldier. In war, we don't put enemy soldiers on trial before we kill them.

It is just a bit insane that we're starting to treat foreign enemies of the state as innocent citizens.

Gadzooks. Bin Laden isn't a soldier, he's a criminal network financier and front man. And his issue isn't with the United States. Islamic jihadists' problem is with the Arab world. They don't like to see Arabs being ruled by secular leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) who don't honor Sharia Law and such. Such jihadists have tried for years to inspire their own people to revolt against their own governments through various acts of terrorism on their own soil. After a couple of decades of failure to achieve their ends, they shifted tactics. They've begun attacking the west in the hopes that the west would over-react. Arabs would likely join the jihadist cause in that case.

History has shown that the Iraq war has been the absolute best propaganda for Bin Laden. Far from weakening Al-Queda, it has strengthened it. So why haven't we had more attacks on US soil? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THE JIHADISTS DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT AMERICA. We can continue to live how we want as long as we're not exporting our filth to where they live.

In light of this, I think it's best to understand Bin Ladin as a political leader, not a military one. And ultimately, he's not America's foe. He's the foe of ARAB MODERATES. I'm not saying we should coddle him, but to characterize him as a traditional soldier is to seriously misunderstand him. And if we're interested in success with respect to our enemies, we'd better understand them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello everybody,

In light of the latest Supreme Court decision where the detainees at Gitmo have a right to a hearing wouldn't Bin Laden be innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, say we capture Bin Laden, isn't he given this right to a hearing? And if it is to be a fair hearing wouldn't he have to be innocent until proven guilty?

If the crimes you're talking about are those that occurred in the US (I have to specify, since it seems to me like he's engaged in crimes all over the world), then why wouldn't he be subject to all the normal protections of the law?

Assuming you're talking about 9/11...

If a foreign citizen shoots and kills an American citizen in New York City, he's tried with murder in the normal way. If that foreign citizen flees to some other country, he's extradited to the US and then tried in the normal way. If a foreign citizen in some other country pays someone in New York City to shoot an American citizen, that foreign citizen is extradited to the US and then tried in the normal way.

The "normal way" includes the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Killing 3,000 people is definitely of greater magnitude than killing a single person, but it's still a difference of degree, not of some fundamental nature of the crime.

It certainly seems to me that Osama bin Laden is a mass murderer; he should be tried as such. Do you really think that meeting the normal standard of proof would be difficult with Osama bin Laden?

And doesn't this undercut many opponents of the Iraq war that say that we should be going after (and indeed trying to kill) Bin Laden instead of going to Iraq?

Sure, but it doesn't undercut justice, which is (or should be) the real aim.

However, I think there's a fundamental difference between two similar-looking approaches:

- going after bin Laden with the hope of bringing him to justice, but recognizing that it may be impossible or cost an inordinate number of American or allied lives to capture him alive, and

- going after bin Laden with the intent of killing him vigilante-style for its own sake.

However, the USA is at war, and bin Laden is an undisputed enemy soldier. In war, we don't put enemy soldiers on trial before we kill them.

In war, we also don't put enemy soldiers on trial for acts of war.

Declaring "we're at war" may lower the bar of acceptability for your own conduct, but it also lowers the bar of acceptability for the conduct of your enemy.

It is just a bit insane that we're starting to treat foreign enemies of the state as innocent citizens.

In every other situation, foreign citizens who commit crimes on US soil are handled by the normal justice system with the normal protections of due process. Why should this case be any different?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In every other situation, foreign citizens who commit crimes on US soil are handled by the normal justice system with the normal protections of due process. Why should this case be any different?

That's not my understanding of it...

There are laws that govern the prosecution of foreign citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and when captured we have to enter into long negotiations with their country of origin. We may deport them upon capture to be tried in their homeland, and generally send them to their country to be imprisoned or tried there. In any case, it's usually a mess.

It's obvious that the debate is ongoing concerning how we will treat our current enemies, because their structure is quite a new thing for us to deal with on such a scale.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Gadzooks. Bin Laden isn't a soldier, he's a criminal network financier and front man. And his issue isn't with the United States. Islamic jihadists' problem is with the Arab world. They don't like to see Arabs being ruled by secular leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) who don't honor Sharia Law and such. Such jihadists have tried for years to inspire their own people to revolt against their own governments through various acts of terrorism on their own soil. After a couple of decades of failure to achieve their ends, they shifted tactics. They've begun attacking the west in the hopes that the west would over-react. Arabs would likely join the jihadist cause in that case.

History has shown that the Iraq war has been the absolute best propaganda for Bin Laden. Far from weakening Al-Queda, it has strengthened it. So why haven't we had more attacks on US soil? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THE JIHADISTS DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT AMERICA. We can continue to live how we want as long as we're not exporting our filth to where they live.

In light of this, I think it's best to understand Bin Ladin as a political leader, not a military one. And ultimately, he's not America's foe. He's the foe of ARAB MODERATES. I'm not saying we should coddle him, but to characterize him as a traditional soldier is to seriously misunderstand him. And if we're interested in success with respect to our enemies, we'd better understand them.

This whole post is quite odd. You are aware that generals are considered soldiers? You know, the jerks that sit behind a desk and order other people to kill...

Not considering bin Laden and enemy of the USA is galactic stupidity.