Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[LittlePinky82]

Hello. I'm studying criminal justice so I feel the need to pipe up. According to our laws any person who is accused of a crime has a day in court according to the fifth and sixth amendments. If you believe the official story of 9/11 BinLadin committed a crime on our soul even if he himself was not here. The attack was on us so he will be tried in our courts and every person who is accused of a crime gets their day in court. Our court system has seen horrible people go through the process before whether it works out or not. There should be enough evidence to put BinLadin and anyone else away who does a terrorist attack on the country. The only reason why a person would not want to try someone in a public court with one's peers as the fifth and sixth amendments say is because they know the person will get off of their crimes. So if you really and truly have enough evidence to put someone away let's see it and debate it in court and do the process right. The last time I checked we live in a democratic republic. I suggest you find out what that means. The Constitution applies to anyone who is on U.S. soil whether in the country or a territory etc. That goes for Guantanamo Bay as well. We have the old saying in our country's land with our court system: innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi LittlePinky,

The problem is that it looks like the argument is being made that soldiers on foreign battlefields are innocent until proven guilty, which means our military couldn't engage them.

They don't get these rights when they are captured, the argument goes that they have always had these rights, which means they are off limits to our military.

 

[LittlePinky82]

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.

Actually check out what Cuba's legal system is like here- .ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjcub.txt
However with North Korea and China you're correct. You'll have to add the correct www and all that and remove the first dot.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Hi LittlePinky,

The problem is that it looks like the argument is being made that soldiers on foreign battlefields are innocent until proven guilty, which means our military couldn't engage them.

They don't get these rights when they are captured, the argument goes that they have always had these rights, which means they are off limits to our military.

They're supposed to. It doesn't matter where they're captured. Everyone gets their day in court according to our Constitution. There have been cases thrown out before just because the Miranda rights weren't read. I assume you know what that is but if not just let me know and I'll respond.

 

[LittlePinky82]

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.

Except that's how you're supposed to treat it according to our laws. If our laws don't mean anything then anyone can be taken up and put in prison because someone has a personal vendetta against them. The system doesn't care if you're OJ Simpson or Ted Bundy or Usama BinLadin. Everyone gets their day in court. Let's have a hearing and a debate and prove he is guilty. If he is as guilty as you say he is then there shouldn't be a problem, should there?

 

[LittlePinky82]

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:

If you are talking about Guantanamo Bay they certainly do since it has to do with U.S. territory and since we have control over that area of Cuba then our laws apply. So if you don't want them tried in US courts then let's have them tried in Cuban courts. Either way they deserve their day in court as anyone does. Prove they are guilty.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Bin Laden Liquors Episode I: Official Site

 

[Autodidact]

The OP is confusing war with criminal justice. They're two different things. Enemy soldiers aren't accused of crimes; they're engaged in war and subject only to the rules of war. IMO Bush should have asked Congress to declare war on Al Qaeda. True, it's unprecedented, but so is their existence. They have in effect declared war on us.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi LittlePinky,

They're supposed to. It doesn't matter where they're captured. Everyone gets their day in court according to our Constitution. There have been cases thrown out before just because the Miranda rights weren't read. I assume you know what that is but if not just let me know and I'll respond.

So our soldiers should be reading Miranda rights to terrorists before we engage them on the battlefield?

 

[Autodidact]

They're supposed to. It doesn't matter where they're captured. Everyone gets their day in court according to our Constitution. There have been cases thrown out before just because the Miranda rights weren't read. I assume you know what that is but if not just let me know and I'll respond.

Well, not the case directly but the illegally obtained confession. If the case can't be made without it, then the case could then be thrown out because it could not be proven as a result. Lack of Miranda warnings does not in itself directly invalidate a charge.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

The OP is confusing war with criminal justice. They're two different things. Enemy soldiers aren't accused of crimes; they're engaged in war and subject only to the rules of war. IMO Bush should have asked Congress to declare war on Al Qaeda. True, it's unprecedented, but so is their existence. They have in effect declared war on us.

Okay, so could our military kill UBL or would they be trampling on his right to a hearing before a federal judge?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know what the incompetent bumbling Bush administration policy is, except to leave him alone while they fight the wrong guy, but by me they can kill him and anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda or their allies.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Well, not the case directly but the illegally obtained confession. If the case can't be made without it, then the case could then be thrown out because it could not be proven as a result. Lack of Miranda warnings does not in itself directly invalidate a charge.

Yes it does according to my criminal justice book "Criminal Justice in the 21st Century." Also my professor who is a former officer himself.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I don't know what the incompetent bumbling Bush administration policy is, except to leave him alone while they fight the wrong guy, but by me they can kill him and anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda or their allies.

And how do you know someone is affiliated with AlQida and their allies? That's why we have a court system. Thomas Jefferson proved that hearsay isn't something the court should go into as the case with Benedict Arnold where he proved one person is not enough to prove someone guilty. There has to be evidence. And don't forget there's all this torture going around as well so confessions taken from the result of torture are thrown out as well.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes it does according to my criminal justice book "Criminal Justice in the 21st Century." Also my professor who is a former officer himself.

I doubt it. Please quote it. Here's what wiki says:

An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights.

BTW I am a practicing attorney. It's not the charge that's thrown out, but the confession. If the charge cannot be proved w/o the confession, then it will be thrown out as well. If you are currently taking Criminal Procedure, you will need to learn this for the test.

 

[Autodidact]

And how do you know someone is affiliated with AlQida and their allies? That's why we have a court system. Thomas Jefferson proved that hearsay isn't something the court should go into as the case with Benedict Arnold where he proved one person is not enough to prove someone guilty. There has to be evidence. And don't forget there's all this torture going around as well so confessions taken from the result of torture are thrown out as well.

Don't think criminal law, think war. When you're shooting at the enemy, you don't give Miranda warnings. You just shoot at the guy on the other side. I'm saying that we should be at war with Al Qaeda. The fact that we're not is just one more piece of Bush administration incompetence.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I doubt it. Please quote it. Here's what wiki says:

An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights.

BTW I am a practicing attorney. It's not the charge that's thrown out, but the confession. If the charge cannot be proved w/o the confession, then it will be thrown out as well. If you are currently taking Criminal Procedure, you will need to learn this for the test.

I'm majoring in criminal justice. I'm not currently taking anything now (summer break) although I have a few criminal justice classes under my belt which I've done VERY well in all of them which I'm proud of obviously. I just recently changed majors from political science not long ago. I took an introductory course to criminal justice and really loved it and changed my major. I want to do either narcotics or homicide. Here's my notes on the case of Miranda rights:

Miranda v Arizona (1966)- Held that police must notify suspects of their rights prior to custodial interrogation no matter what whenever placed in custody. Including asking question's based on the incident. After the warnings have been given the following should be asked: 1) do you understand the rights? 2) knowing the rights do you wish to talk now?

If you don't follow this then you're seriously screwin.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Don't think criminal law, think war. When you're shooting at the enemy, you don't give Miranda warnings. You just shoot at the guy on the other side. I'm saying that we should be at war with Al Qaeda. The fact that we're not is just one more piece of Bush administration incompetence.

Then follow the Constitution and declare it. Don't just do it or say it. You have to follow procedure. If you don't than anyone can do whatever they want. Incompetence? LOL. I think you need to research a little thing called B.C.C.I. and financing terrorism. I did a paper on that for my Criminology class last term and got an A so I'm recommending that to you now. I just had a few grammar mistakes. My point is it's not incompetence at all.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

I don't know what the incompetent bumbling Bush administration policy is, except to leave him alone while they fight the wrong guy, but by me they can kill him and anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda or their allies.

But what about their right to a hearing before a federal judge?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Hi Auto,



But what about their right to a hearing before a federal judge?

In the past whenever the U.S. was involved in some type of battle like this people would seek out American soldiers and give themselves up to them because they knew the Americans would treat them well and be fair and just. Isn't it time we start showing that again?