Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[Dunemeister]

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.

Yes, I am quite aware that generals are soldiers. Bin Laden isn't a general. He's a mob boss. He's a jerk that orders others to kill but he's NOT a soldier.

You may think it galactic stupidity to think Bin Laden isn't an enemy of the USA, but I beg your indulgence. I've said that BL's political ambitions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the USA. They have everything to do with the Arabs. His attack on the USA was intended to further his aims BACK HOME in Saudi Arabia, which he sees as too cozy with the west and needs to be more strict in their observance of Sharia. He certainly doesn't want to invade the USA or take any of its soil as his possession. In short, his attack on the USA was a poke in the eye designed to make the US attack the middle east in their usual clumsy, ham-fisted, self-righteous way. And the USA gave him exactly what he wanted. (Indeed, there's every indication that the USA's initially successful operation in Afghanistan caused BL a great deal of headache because the operation was so modest and effective. America's turn to Iraq, however, was a godsend for him.)

So certainly BL doesn't support America's way of life. But his aversion to that didn't motivate his attack on the US. We certainly can't count BL among America's friends, no doubt, but he's not an enemy in the same sense that Germany was America's enemy during WWII. It's not as straightforward as that. And if we continue to treat the BL issue with a simple, straightforward misunderstanding, it'll get us into even more long-term trouble than we're in. Frankly, if America had remained focussed on the original task -- capturing BL (or killing him in the attempt), the USA could have tried him on charges of conspiracy, arson, a couple thousand counts of murder, and so on. Afghanistan, once the Taliban had been ejected, couldn't possibly have refused to allow the USA to conduct the trial and mete out the punishment, and the world would have stood with the USA.

But of course, that's all moot because the USA didn't keep to the path of wisdom, but made a wild detour to Baghdad.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, I am quite aware that generals are soldiers. Bin Laden isn't a general. He's a mob boss. He's a jerk that orders others to kill but he's NOT a soldier.

You may think it galactic stupidity to think Bin Laden isn't an enemy of the USA, but I beg your indulgence. I've said that BL's political ambitions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the USA. They have everything to do with the Arabs. His attack on the USA was intended to further his aims BACK HOME in Saudi Arabia, which he sees as too cozy with the west and needs to be more strict in their observance of Sharia. He certainly doesn't want to invade the USA or take any of its soil as his possession. In short, his attack on the USA was a poke in the eye designed to make the US attack the middle east in their usual clumsy, ham-fisted, self-righteous way. And the USA gave him exactly what he wanted. (Indeed, there's every indication that the USA's initially successful operation in Afghanistan caused BL a great deal of headache because the operation was so modest and effective. America's turn to Iraq, however, was a godsend for him.)

So certainly BL doesn't support America's way of life. But his aversion to that didn't motivate his attack on the US. We certainly can't count BL among America's friends, no doubt, but he's not an enemy in the same sense that Germany was America's enemy during WWII. It's not as straightforward as that. And if we continue to treat the BL issue with a simple, straightforward misunderstanding, it'll get us into even more long-term trouble than we're in. Frankly, if America had remained focussed on the original task -- capturing BL (or killing him in the attempt), the USA could have tried him on charges of conspiracy, arson, a couple thousand counts of murder, and so on. Afghanistan, once the Taliban had been ejected, couldn't possibly have refused to allow the USA to conduct the trial and mete out the punishment, and the world would have stood with the USA.

But of course, that's all moot because the USA didn't keep to the path of wisdom, but made a wild detour to Baghdad.

I agree that it is a complex problem and appreciate your thinking on this, but you're merely elaborating on what kind of enemy BL is...

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree that it is a complex problem and appreciate your thinking on this, but you're merely elaborating on what kind of enemy BL is...

Well, no. My point is that BL didn't attack the USA because he views it as his enemy. He did it in order to provoke attacks on his home turf that he could use to promote his domestic cause. He uses enemy rhetoric, but he honestly doesn't care about the USA.

It's easy to see how the USA, given 9/11, has made BL their enemy. But that's a different issue from BL regarding the USA as an enemy. I don't think he does. I think he regards the USA as merely foreign and an unwelcome influence in his region; but his enemies -- defined as the people he ultimately opposes -- are domestic, not foreign. The West, because they have a habit of being rather clumsy in their handling of the middle east, generally don't assess their opponents (that word chosen advisedly) properly.

In other words, there may be a different way to handle this situation than by running all over the world stomping on other peoples' homes. Understanding the complexity of the enemy and what he's about is the first step, and I fear the USA hasn't taken that first step.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Yes, the US has the option to send them back to their own country, but the protections of the Constitution still apply, correct?

In the interest of diplomacy, the US may deport foreign criminals to have their trial or serve their sentence in their home country, but this doesn't absolve the US government of its responsibility to due process while the accused criminal is subject to its authority, right?

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.

Is it?

The United States was subject to virtually constant espionage from the Soviets through the Cold War. Through the '80s and '90s, there was a surge in domestic terrorism (e.g. the Unabomber, Oklahoma City, etc.) that didn't have the same cost in lives as 9/11, but arguably had a similar impact on American society.

None of these threats to the nation and its people - or any that came before it - required the suspension of due process. Heck... when your country was literally used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks on your neighbor and ally, that didn't require a suspension of due process (as it didn't in the attacked country itself).

 

[kai]

Yes, I am quite aware that generals are soldiers. Bin Laden isn't a general. He's a mob boss. He's a jerk that orders others to kill but he's NOT a soldier.

You may think it galactic stupidity to think Bin Laden isn't an enemy of the USA, but I beg your indulgence. I've said that BL's political ambitions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the USA. They have everything to do with the Arabs. His attack on the USA was intended to further his aims BACK HOME in Saudi Arabia, which he sees as too cozy with the west and needs to be more strict in their observance of Sharia. He certainly doesn't want to invade the USA or take any of its soil as his possession. In short, his attack on the USA was a poke in the eye designed to make the US attack the middle east in their usual clumsy, ham-fisted, self-righteous way. And the USA gave him exactly what he wanted. (Indeed, there's every indication that the USA's initially successful operation in Afghanistan caused BL a great deal of headache because the operation was so modest and effective. America's turn to Iraq, however, was a godsend for him.)

So certainly BL doesn't support America's way of life. But his aversion to that didn't motivate his attack on the US. We certainly can't count BL among America's friends, no doubt, but he's not an enemy in the same sense that Germany was America's enemy during WWII. It's not as straightforward as that. And if we continue to treat the BL issue with a simple, straightforward misunderstanding, it'll get us into even more long-term trouble than we're in. Frankly, if America had remained focussed on the original task -- capturing BL (or killing him in the attempt), the USA could have tried him on charges of conspiracy, arson, a couple thousand counts of murder, and so on. Afghanistan, once the Taliban had been ejected, couldn't possibly have refused to allow the USA to conduct the trial and mete out the punishment, and the world would have stood with the USA.

But of course, that's all moot because the USA didn't keep to the path of wisdom, but made a wild detour to Baghdad.

baghdad shmagdad ,Bin laden is the enemy of America and its citizens and has issued two fatwas stating that Muslims should kill civilians and military from the united States. the Taliban have not been ejected and he is still at large, which has more to do with the fact that he is probably in waziristan and not Afghanistan, than anything to do with Baghdad. its time to wake up to the fact that the Taliban and its minor ally Al Queda are not just in Afghanistan and make another wild detour or go home.

Waziristan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the Pakistanis have just given one of the four waziri tribal leaders 20 million dollars for a ceasefire, the reason we don't have Bin laden is because he is not in Afghanistan and neither are half the Taliban . and we are too scared to tilt the balance in favor of the fundamentalists in Pakistan, and end up with a bin Laden Sympathizing Pakistani government.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, the US has the option to send them back to their own country, but the protections of the Constitution still apply, correct?

Nope. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States (well, until now...). When foreigners are tried in US courts, they are sometimes extended constitutional rights.

In the interest of diplomacy, the US may deport foreign criminals to have their trial or serve their sentence in their home country, but this doesn't absolve the US government of its responsibility to due process while the accused criminal is subject to its authority, right?

Well, I'm not sure. It seems to me that exporting the criminal denies them due process. We are refusing to try them ourselves and denying the "suspect" protection under our constitution and laws. Indeed, we may be handing them over to countries where we know that they will be tortured, killed, or otherwise mistreated without US due process.

Is it?

The United States was subject to virtually constant espionage from the Soviets through the Cold War. Through the '80s and '90s, there was a surge in domestic terrorism (e.g. the Unabomber, Oklahoma City, etc.) that didn't have the same cost in lives as 9/11, but arguably had a similar impact on American society.

None of these threats to the nation and its people - or any that came before it - required the suspension of due process. Heck... when your country was literally used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks on your neighbor and ally, that didn't require a suspension of due process (as it didn't in the attacked country itself).

A comparison to the Cold War does not apply here. One of the critical differences is that agents of the USA and Russia were both representatives of their countries. BL and many other terrorists are not connected with a state, which makes conventional warfare impossible. Hence the difficulties...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States (well, until now...). When foreigners are tried in US courts, they are sometimes extended constitutional rights.

Are you sure about that? The Constitution specifies that some rights and protections (e.g. due process) are granted to "persons" or "the people", and others (e.g. voting) are granted to "citizens". On top of this, there are restrictions on the powers of government that seem to apply equally in all cases.

If you're right, I may have to re-think my next few planned visits to the US.

Well, I'm not sure. It seems to me that exporting the criminal denies them due process. We are refusing to try them ourselves and denying the "suspect" protection under our constitution and laws. Indeed, we may be handing them over to countries where we know that they will be tortured, killed, or otherwise mistreated without US due process.

That possibility exists, which is why extradition hearings are carried out. AFAIK, the expectation that an accused's rights won't be protected is one of the grounds for denying extradition.

A comparison to the Cold War does not apply here. One of the critical differences is that agents of the USA and Russia were both representatives of their countries. BL and many other terrorists are not connected with a state, which makes conventional warfare impossible. Hence the difficulties...

So a comparison to the Fenian Brotherhood (the group in the link in my previous post) would be very applicable: they were not the representatives of any official government, yet were carrying out war-like activities.

 

[lilithu]

Right on cue! LOL! Now where is ScabbyPete crowing "Hatriatism! Hatriatism!". I'm hoping lilithu will drop in and call me hateful so I can have the Far Left Trifecta.

*yawn* If you wish it, dear. Otoh, you could try presenting reasoned responses instead of just attacking people. Too hard?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you sure about that? The Constitution specifies that some rights and protections (e.g. due process) are granted to "persons" or "the people", and others (e.g. voting) are granted to "citizens". On top of this, there are restrictions on the powers of government that seem to apply equally in all cases.

Yes, I am reasonably certain, but I'm not a lawyer.

If you're right, I may have to re-think my next few planned visits to the US.

Well, the best thing to do is just call your embassy if you get in trouble with the law in a foreign country - any foreign country for that matter. They can best advise you on how to interact with the court system.

 

[lilithu]

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 do you mean "NOW innocent until proven guilty?" The Supreme Court simply upheld what has always been the case. People, no matter who they are, are legally presumed innocent until proven guilty. That means they have the right to a fair and reasonably speedy trial. It certainly does not mean that you can't go after people who we have reason to believe have committed a crime. Unless you're suggesting that the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers can't arrest anyone because they're presumed innocent? :areyoucra

C'mon Joe, do you actually disagree with SCOTUS' decision to uphold one of the most cherished principles of our democracy? Or are you just looking for any possibility, no matter how far-fetched, to poke at liberals?

 

[Smoke]

Nope. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States (well, until now...). When foreigners are tried in US courts, they are sometimes extended constitutional rights.

Well, I'm not sure. It seems to me that exporting the criminal denies them due process. We are refusing to try them ourselves and denying the "suspect" protection under our constitution and laws. Indeed, we may be handing them over to countries where we know that they will be tortured, killed, or otherwise mistreated without US due process.

No. Deportations are not considered criminal matters, and an alien in a deportation hearing (if there even is a hearing) doesn't have constitutional rights. But an alien tried for a crime in a US court has the same due process rights as a citizen.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No. Deportations are not considered criminal matters, and an alien in a deportation hearing (if there even is a hearing) doesn't have constitutional rights. But an alien tried for a crime in a US court has the same due process rights as a citizen.

I'm not talking about deportation.

notes:
Extraordinary rendition by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rendition (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But extraordinary rendition is legally distinct from both deportation and extradition.

 

[Smoke]

I'm not talking about deportation.

note: Extraordinary rendition by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, but my point is that if an alien is tried in US courts, he does have all the same constitutional protections you do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Okay, but my point is that if an alien is tried in US courts, he does have all the same constitutional protections you do.

That's what I said.

 

[Smoke]

That's what I said.

No, it's not.

Nope. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States (well, until now...). When foreigners are tried in US courts, they are sometimes extended constitutional rights.

 

[Smoke]

A lot of people are acting as if the court has done something novel or even radical by ruling that aliens may petition for writ of habeas corpus. It hasn't. Aliens have always had the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus along with all the other protections of the Constitution.

If aliens didn't have due process rights under the Constitution, the effect would be that nobody did. Say the Tarrant County sheriff arrests you and holds you without charging you with a crime or allowing you to contact an attorney. He informs you that he intends to hold you indefinitely, and says you have no constitutional rights because you're an alien. How do you prove that you're a citizen?

As these various legal cases have worked their way through the courts over the last six years, the administration's case has been based mostly on (a) the claim that the president has the authority to do whatever the hell he pleases in time of war and (b) the claim US courts have no jurisdiction over Guantanamo because Cuba has ultimate jurisdiction over Guantanamo.

It's true that Justice Scalia takes the view that citizens have rights aliens don't, or at least, his opinions leave you with that impression, but the government's denial of habeas corpus was never primarily about citizenship.

 

[Valjean]

Would eliminating Bin Laden have any effect on the middle east brouhaha at this point/

 

[Autodidact]

Let's say, hypothetically, that a guy named Osama Bin Loden, guy with a beard, gets off a plane at O'hare, and the FBI jumps on it and arrests him. The Supreme Court says that he is entitled to a hearing to show that they accidentally picked up the wrong guy. The Bush administration says they can hold him forever without ever reviewing the evidence or bringing him before any tribunal. Which one do you agree with?

And lest you think that doesn't happen, are you familiar with Maher Arar, a Canadian who had just that happen to him, only they put him on a plane for Jordan, where he was gruesomely tortured, before they realized they had the wrong guy? Or Kahlid al-Masri, whose arrest was actually based on a misspelling? he got tortured too. Should they have had a right to be brought before a Judge where they could say, "I'm not the guy?"

 

[NoahideHiker]

Let's say, hypothetically, that a guy named Osama Bin Loden, guy with a beard, gets off a plane at O'hare, and the FBI jumps on it and arrests him. The Supreme Court says that he is entitled to a hearing to show that they accidentally picked up the wrong guy. The Bush administration says they can hold him forever without ever reviewing the evidence or bringing him before any tribunal. Which one do you agree with?

And lest you think that doesn't happen, are you familiar with Maher Arar, a Canadian who had just that happen to him, only they put him on a plane for Jordan, where he was gruesomely tortured, before they realized they had the wrong guy? Or Kahlid al-Masri, whose arrest was actually based on a misspelling? he got tortured too. Should they have had a right to be brought before a Judge where they could say, "I'm not the guy?"

That's not right IMHO. One problem is that international laws which normally apply to more formal actions and operations, don't here. And that's wrong because there needs to be limits. But at the same time I don't feel we should capture him and give him some warm milk while we sit down and hold hands and talk it out.

This guy hanging in the public square is all I'm really concerned about. How he makes it there makes little difference to me.

 

[Panda]

Whats to say he will end up in an American prison? Or are you just assuming this? You should never assume, it makes an *** of you and me.