Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[Smoke]

Whomever it was who did the torturing during Vietnam. It was the Japanese correct?

Japan was involved in Vietnam during the 1940s but not, as far as I know, thereafter. The notorious Hanoi Hilton prison was run by the French and later by the North Vietnamese. During American involvement in the Vietnam War, torture was practiced by both sides.

Well then that depends on each person's view of how a war is declared. Personally I view 9/11 as a federal crime since it was an attack on the federal building. The people who previously attacked the WTC are now in jail serving life sentences without parole. I say do the same to BinLadin. The problem with declaring war on AlQida is the fact that they are all over the world. Are you going to go to every country that has one member of AlQida and attack them? And this goes back to innocence until proven guilty. Terrorism is an act against the government by a person or group of people who want the government to do what they wish. Just because you have some members of any type of group doing terrorism doesn't mean the whole group is guilty. That's why we have a court room and our laws to determine if someone is or isn't.

I agree with your assessment that this is a criminal matter and not an excuse for war.

I remember sometime in either 2005 or 2006 the CIA even closed down their unit that was tracking BinLadin. I was amazed at that! The only person I remember getting really angry about that and even mentioned it was John Kerry.

I wasn't even aware of that, but I can't say it surprises me. Thank you for the information.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Maybe you should recheck your logic. You seem to be saying that if the Constitution protects the rights of criminal defendants, then the U.S. cannot declare war. Pretty silly argument.

You'll have to show me where in the recent Supreme Court decision it said that a declaration of war would invalidate the rights of foreign soldiers to have a hearing before a federal judge.

If you can do that, then we can proceed.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,



You'll have to show me where in the recent Supreme Court decision it said that a declaration of war would invalidate the rights of foreign soldiers to have a hearing before a federal judge.

If you can do that, then we can proceed.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to say that under the constitution it is illegal for American soldiers to shoot at the enemy? That they first have to go before a federal Judge? On what do you base that hilarious assertion? Enemy soldiers are not criminal defendants. Are you saying that every American soldier is guilty of a crime? Why would this come up in the recent decision, which had nothing to do with foreign soldiers?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to say that under the constitution it is illegal for American soldiers to shoot at the enemy? That they first have to go before a federal Judge? On what do you base that hilarious assertion? Enemy soldiers are not criminal defendants. Are you saying that every American soldier is guilty of a crime? Why would this come up in the recent decision, which had nothing to do with foreign soldiers?

All great questions. Let's start by finding out if foreign soldiers have rights. Do foreign soliders on the battlefield have rights or do they only get rights when they are captured by our military?

 

[McBell]

Do foreign soliders on the battlefield have rights or do they only get rights when they are captured by our military?

Foreign soldiers?
Or do you mean enemy soldiers?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

All great questions. Let's start by finding out if foreign soldiers have rights. Do foreign soliders on the battlefield have rights or do they only get rights when they are captured by our military?

Yes, why don't you do that. Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with the rights of criminal defendants.

Good questions? You mean you actually have a question as to whether American soldiers who shoot at the enemy are therefore criminals? Well, ever heard of one being prosecuted for it?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

Foreign soldiers?
Or do you mean enemy soldiers?

Yeah, probably enemy soliders would work better.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Yes, why don't you do that. Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with the rights of criminal defendants.

So, what is the answer to these questions:

1. Do enemy soldiers have rights?

2. If no to question (1), do enemy soldiers get rights when they are captured by our military?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Japan was involved in Vietnam during the 1940s but not, as far as I know, thereafter. The notorious Hanoi Hilton prison was run by the French and later by the North Vietnamese. During American involvement in the Vietnam War, torture was practiced by both sides.

I agree with your assessment that this is a criminal matter and not an excuse for war.

I wasn't even aware of that, but I can't say it surprises me. Thank you for the information.

Who was it who tortured McCain? Was it the Vietnamese then? Perhaps I just got them mixed up....

It's hard to have a war with a group of people who are spread all over the world. That's one reason why I see this as a criminal ordeal. If the people are as guilty as claimed let's see the evidence in court and have a fair trial. It shouldn't be too hard I wouldn't think and I'm sure the maximum sentence would be carried out if the person is proven to have done some act of terrorism. The people who did the first WTC attack were charged and are now serving life sentences without parole. Patrick Fitzgerald was one of the main prosecutors who put them in prison. He later went on to investigate the Valerie Plame Wilson affair.

You're welcome. I only know about that information because of John Kerry mentioning it. He was so ****** off about it. If he didn't mention it nobody would probably know about it I think but that's just me. The CIA did it very hush-hush. Does anyone know if they have to get permission from the president to close down operations like that or can they do it at their own will?

 

[LittlePinky82]

What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to say that under the constitution it is illegal for American soldiers to shoot at the enemy? That they first have to go before a federal Judge? On what do you base that hilarious assertion? Enemy soldiers are not criminal defendants. Are you saying that every American soldier is guilty of a crime? Why would this come up in the recent decision, which had nothing to do with foreign soldiers?

Just curious: does not declaring war as the legal documents say have anything to do with that? I'm just curious about how that fits into the picture if at all. I'm sure you are aware of the Nuremberg trials.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

So, what is the answer to these questions:

1. Do enemy soldiers have rights?

I don't know, why are you asking me?

2. If no to question (1), do enemy soldiers get rights when they are captured by our military?

Yes, Geneva convention. That's why Bush doesn't want to classify these detainees as prisoners of war.

 

[Autodidact]

Who was it who tortured McCain? Was it the Vietnamese then? Perhaps I just got them mixed up....

It's hard to have a war with a group of people who are spread all over the world.

Yes, it's hard. War is hard. But it's necessary. After all, they attacked us.

 

[Autodidact]

Just curious: does not declaring war as the legal documents say have anything to do with that? I'm just curious about how that fits into the picture if at all. I'm sure you are aware of the Nuremberg trials.

Sorry, don't understand your question. Could you rephrase? Thanks.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Yes, it's hard. War is hard. But it's necessary. After all, they attacked us.

So why aren't we in Saudi Arabia? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but yet Bush goes kissy-kissy with their leaders. For the record however who is "they?"

 

[LittlePinky82]

Sorry, don't understand your question. Could you rephrase? Thanks.

Where does the fact you have to declare war, according to the Constitution, fit into the equation?

 

[kai]

Bin Laden has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

Wiki

as for declaring war how can you declare war on an organization that is so loosely connected across the world? that spans borders and nationalities has no government etc. its a terrorist organization.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


as for POW status they do not fit The criteria, Alqaeda operatives are from all over and wear no recognized uniforms, represent no government or state etc, the Taliban are different but are not the armed forces of any recognized government. going bk to say WW2 wearing a uniform gave you a certain amount of protection ,caught without one and you were a spy and shot. I believe Iraqi army were POWs but insurgents are not

saying that once captured they should be treated with humanity. or we become what it is we are fighting.

 

[McBell]

saying that once captured they should be treated with humanity. or we become what it is we are fighting.

I agree.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Yes - a trial would take place. But more than anything, it would be for formalities sake. Bin Laden will die.

He is "innocent until proven guilty" but in his case, he has already been proven guilty. He has released numerous tapes taking full responsibility for the attack of 9/11. He has in a sense signed a full confenssion to the world and has broken bail.

Now the hunt is on and once he is found, he will die - as he should.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Everyone's talking about morality of the trial of Bin Laden - he's already guilty by his own admission. And the new Supreme Court ruling doesn't give the GITMO detainees the bill of rights protection - it grants them only the Habeaus Corpus right of trial.

 

[kai]

Yes - a trial would take place. But more than anything, it would be for formalities sake. Bin Laden will die.

He is "innocent until proven guilty" but in his case, he has already been proven guilty. He has released numerous tapes taking full responsibility for the attack of 9/11. He has in a sense signed a full confenssion to the world and has broken bail.

Now the hunt is on and once he is found, he will die - as he should.

Bin Laden has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.


wiki