Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Cool. Thanks.

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.

Seems an odd position to take, IMO, since the authority they're claiming has jurisdiction over GITMO is also of the opinion that GITMO itself is illegal, isn't it? Also, I'm fairly certain that they aren't generally enforcing Cuban law there (such as, for example, the prohibition on conducting transactions in US funds).

That all sounds good until we dropped bombs on tora bora where we thought he was hiding out. Wouldn't it be unlawful for our military to attempt to kill someone who is presumed innocent?

You're confusing two different ideas: protection and justice.

Here's an example that will hopefully make things clear (or make things even muddier): picture a cop (let's call him Steve) arresting a man (let's call him Leon) for murder. As a murder suspect, Leon is entitled to due process before being punished, including the presumption of innocence.

However, during the arrest, Leon pulls a gun and points it at Steve; Steve shoots and kills Leon. Was he right to do so? Did Steve deprive Leon of his due process?

I'd say that Steve was right to do what he did, and that Leon was not deprived of due process. Here's why: shooting Leon wasn't about the suspected murder, it was about the gun. Justice is about making people answer for past actions; protection is about dealing with present or imminent threats.

It sure seems to me like Osama bin Laden has quite a bit to answer for regarding his past actions. It also seems to me that he still represents a deadly threat to many innocent people. Due process applies for the first issue, but not for the second. Trying to kill bin Laden is about stopping a threat and a danger, not about summarily executing him for his crimes.

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.

No.

Killing a soldier on a battlefield isn't about punishing that soldier for something he did previously, it's about addressing the threat he represents in the here and now.

All people have the right to not be punished for crimes until they receive due process, but battlefield deaths are not punishments for crimes.

 

[Autodidact]

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?"

Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia did not attack us; Al Qaeda did. The current government of Saudi Arabia is Al Qaeda's prime enemy, so it would be idiocy to blame or attack them. To decide what to do in the uber-complicated Middle East, you have to know a lot about it; more than I do. Some believe that bin Laden chose Saudi Arabians for this assignment in the hopes of alienating the Saudi/American alliance.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Just do it. Like this: "We hereby declare war on Al Qaeda. It is our intent to destroy this organization or accept its unconditional surrender. We call upon the nations of the world to join with us in this intention." I realize that it's unprecedented, but then so was the attack. I believe that Congress would happily have passed legislation to this effect, and authorizing the President to use all instruments of war to carry it out.

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

My point is that you have to pick one. Either way they have some rights. If they're not POWs, then they're criminal defendants. No one gets to just kidnap people off the street and torture them and imprison them indefinitely, least of all the government of the U.S. That is the intent of our Constitution.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Into what equation? Declare war to do what?

 

[kai]

Just do it. Like this: We hereby declare war on Al Qaeda. It is our intent to destroy this organization or accept its unconditional surrender. We call upon the nations of the world to join with us in this intention. I realize that it's unprecedented, but then so was the attack. I believe that Congress would happily have passed legislation to this effect, and authorizing the President to use all instruments of war to carry it out.

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


My point is that you have to pick one. Either way they have some rights. If they're not POWs, then they're criminal defendants. No one gets to just kidnap people off the street and torture them and imprison them indefinitely, least of all the government of the U.S. That is the intent of our Constitution.

cant really argue with you,

 

[Neo-Logic]

Also, the reason we are declaring "war on terror" - a non state, is that we knew we could not declare war as we would violate the terms of the Geneva Convention if we did. By declaring official war, we would have POW"s instead of our now dubbed "Detainees" and "enemy combatants." These are new ******** words we made up to circumvent the Geneva Convention's stipulation that all POW's must receive basic judicial rights deeded crucial by civilized society.

I'm glad Supreme Court finally enabled Habeaus Corpus rights for even these detainees of conflict. But Bin Laden will still die - his guilt is already self-confessed. Trial would simply be for show.

 

[LittlePinky82]

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.

And most insurgents are Iraqi citizen's fighting for their country against an occupied force. Any country would do the same thing.

 

[Autodidact]

Also, the reason we are declaring "war on terror" - a non state, is that we knew we could not declare war as we would violate the terms of the Geneva Convention if we did. By declaring official war, we would have POW"s instead of our now dubbed "Detainees" and "enemy combatants." These are new ******** words we made up to circumvent the Geneva Convention's stipulation that all POW's must receive basic judicial rights deeded crucial by civilized society.

I'm glad Supreme Court finally enabled Habeaus Corpus rights for even these detainees of conflict. But Bin Laden will still die - his guilt is already self-confessed. Trial would simply be for show.

I also think that Bush is calling it a "war on terror" (what a stupid concept) because he wants to be a war president all the time, and for us to be in a constant eternal state of war so he can invoke his war powers, brush aside the constitution "in time of war," etc. Since a war on terror will never be over, that gives him what he wants.

 

[LittlePinky82]

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.

Well you have to first prove those tapes are real and from him. And it shouldn't matter if he's already proven guilty. He still deserves a fair trial since that is the way of our republic. Juries will not be filled with people who are totally biased. Of course that's a hard task in itself.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia did not attack us; Al Qaeda did. The current government of Saudi Arabia is Al Qaeda's prime enemy, so it would be idiocy to blame or attack them. To decide what to do in the uber-complicated Middle East, you have to know a lot about it; more than I do. Some believe that bin Laden chose Saudi Arabians for this assignment in the hopes of alienating the Saudi/American alliance.

And fifteen of those nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. BinLadin is from Saudi Arabia. The royal there kicked him out because he was making trouble. My point is they were citizen's of that country but yet we didn't attack them because they are our friends (who are HORRIBLE on human rights by the way and still behead people in the public square!). "What to do about it"? How about we butt out of their issues for once? But of course we can't do that since we're an imperalist nation. And people still wonder why we got attacked? LOL. "Some believe"? Please. Show some evidence of it or it's nothing more than your opinion.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Also, the reason we are declaring "war on terror" - a non state, is that we knew we could not declare war as we would violate the terms of the Geneva Convention if we did. By declaring official war, we would have POW"s instead of our now dubbed "Detainees" and "enemy combatants." These are new ******** words we made up to circumvent the Geneva Convention's stipulation that all POW's must receive basic judicial rights deeded crucial by civilized society.

I'm glad Supreme Court finally enabled Habeaus Corpus rights for even these detainees of conflict. But Bin Laden will still die - his guilt is already self-confessed. Trial would simply be for show.

Ah that's very interesting and true. I never thought about that before. Also remember that Bush did everything he could from officially doing anything. The Supreme Court made two other rulings on this as well. What did that change? Nothing. Trials aren't supposed to be for show. They are supposed to be for getting at the truth of the crime whether the person is innocent or not. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"? We have to uphold our system. If it doesn't work for one person it doesn't work for all.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I also think that Bush is calling it a "war on terror" (what a stupid concept) because he wants to be a war president all the time, and for us to be in a constant eternal state of war so he can invoke his war powers, brush aside the constitution "in time of war," etc. Since a war on terror will never be over, that gives him what he wants.

Exactly! Same thing with this latest FISA b.s. that was passed. How can you fight a "war on terror"? Terrorism doesn't know a country. It's not in uniform. It's an act. And you're not supposed to bring someone in until they do the act (at least officially according to my criminal justice notes). John Kerry was totally right about this that we have to fight using the law (see Britain for an example).

 

[Autodidact]

And fifteen of those nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. BinLadin is from Saudi Arabia. The royal there kicked him out because he was making trouble. My point is they were citizen's of that country but yet we didn't attack them because they are our friends (who are HORRIBLE on human rights by the way and still behead people in the public square!). "What to do about it"? How about we butt out of their issues for once? But of course we can't do that since we're an imperalist nation. And people still wonder why we got attacked? LOL. "Some believe"? Please. Show some evidence of it or it's nothing more than your opinion.

Well, if you're advocating attacking Saudi Arabia, then you're proposing that we do something about it. I suggest that would be a bad idea, and that one needs to understand much more about the Middle East before adopting such a rash proposal.

The idea that bin Laden deliberately chose Saudi Arabians for that mission is not my own, nor do I have any idea whether it's true. It comes from The Politically Incorrect Guide to the MIddle-East by Martin Sieff.

We do, however, need to take effective action against Al Qaeda, who are primarily based in the MIddle-East, so we can't just leave the region alone entirely.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Also, the reason we are declaring "war on terror" - a non state, is that we knew we could not declare war as we would violate the terms of the Geneva Convention if we did. By declaring official war, we would have POW"s instead of our now dubbed "Detainees" and "enemy combatants." These are new ******** words we made up to circumvent the Geneva Convention's stipulation that all POW's must receive basic judicial rights deeded crucial by civilized society.

I'm glad Supreme Court finally enabled Habeaus Corpus rights for even these detainees of conflict. But Bin Laden will still die - his guilt is already self-confessed. Trial would simply be for show.

It doesn't circumvent the Geneva Conventions - it openly disregards it.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Well, if you're advocating attacking Saudi Arabia, then you're proposing that we do something about it. I suggest that would be a bad idea, and that one needs to understand much more about the Middle East before adopting such a rash proposal.

The idea that bin Laden deliberately chose Saudi Arabians for that mission is not my own, nor do I have any idea whether it's true. It comes from The Politically Incorrect Guide to the MIddle-East by Martin Sieff.

We do, however, need to take effective action against Al Qaeda, who are primarily based in the MIddle-East, so we can't just leave the region alone entirely.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy with Iraq and our middle east policies. Bush claimed Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and that's why we attacked them which is false of course. However, as I mentioned, fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but yet we're still buddy-buddy with them. Bush is also claiming things with Iran that Saudi Arabia is doing. He's saying that Iran is sending people into Iraq to fight against the US troops but Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing but yet nobody gets mad at that. Why do you think that is? AlQida is growing all over the world. They're gaining a lot in South Africa. So do you want to attack them? And how do you know someone is in AlQida? Because someone else says so? AlQida doesn't have a uniform or anything as already pointed out in this thread. You're also not supposed to arrest someone until they do an actual act.

 

[Autodidact]

No I'm not. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy with Iraq and our middle east policies. Bush claimed Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and that's why we attacked them which is false of course. However, as I mentioned, fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but yet we're still buddy-buddy with them. Bush is also claiming things with Iran that Saudi Arabia is doing. He's saying that Iran is sending people into Iraq to fight against the US troops but Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing but yet nobody gets mad at that. Why do you think that is? AlQida is growing all over the world. They're gaining a lot in South Africa. So do you want to attack them? And how do you know someone is in AlQida? Because someone else says so? AlQida doesn't have a uniform or anything as already pointed out in this thread. You're also not supposed to arrest someone until they do an actual act.

Oh, I see. Well I think that's not so much hypocrisy as plain old being wrong. I still don't know whether he was just really, really, mistaken or had some ulterior motive. I don't really care, as either way it was disastrous for the country.

Of course I want to attack Al Qaeda--they unilaterally attacked us. That's kind of who you do attack--the people who attack you first. The people you don't attack are the people who weren't bothering you, like Iraq. Do I want to attack South Africa? No, why, are they allies of Al Qaeda? Because I want to destroy Al Qaeda doesn't mean that the best way to go about that is to attack any country where they may be found; quite the contrary, that would be moronic. You have to do it in a smart, focused, strategic way. However I do say that if after 9/11 we had focused on Al Qaeda (the people who actually attacked us) rather than Iraq (the people who didn't) we would have had the support of almost every country in the world.

I'm not talking about arresting people and I'm not talking about criminal law. I'm talking about war.

Yes, it may sometimes be difficult to identify the enemy. That sometimes happens in war. That doesn't mean that you don't do it. The alternative is to remain vulnerable to being attacked again--like we are right now. It's our job to destroy Al Qaeda. The fact that we haven't is absolutely shameful. We defeated the Nazis, Italy and Japan in less time than we've been fooling around invading the wrong country and leaving the actual enemy to grow stronger.

 

[kai]

And most insurgents are Iraqi citizen's fighting for their country against an occupied force. Any country would do the same thing.

source please?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Oh, I see. Well I think that's not so much hypocrisy as plain old being wrong. I still don't know whether he was just really, really, mistaken or had some ulterior motive. I don't really care, as either way it was disastrous for the country.

Of course I want to attack Al Qaeda--they unilaterally attacked us. That's kind of who you do attack--the people who attack you first. The people you don't attack are the people who weren't bothering you, like Iraq. Do I want to attack South Africa? No, why, are they allies of Al Qaeda? Because I want to destroy Al Qaeda doesn't mean that the best way to go about that is to attack any country where they may be found; quite the contrary, that would be moronic. You have to do it in a smart, focused, strategic way. However I do say that if after 9/11 we had focused on Al Qaeda (the people who actually attacked us) rather than Iraq (the people who didn't) we would have had the support of almost every country in the world.

I'm not talking about arresting people and I'm not talking about criminal law. I'm talking about war.

Yes, it may sometimes be difficult to identify the enemy. That sometimes happens in war. That doesn't mean that you don't do it. The alternative is to remain vulnerable to being attacked again--like we are right now. It's our job to destroy Al Qaeda. The fact that we haven't is absolutely shameful. We defeated the Nazis, Italy and Japan in less time than we've been fooling around invading the wrong country and leaving the actual enemy to grow stronger.

Oh and also remember when Bush said anyone who harbors terrorist's is an enemy of the U.S.? So why are we friends with Pakistan? They are harboring BinLadin and AlQida. So there's another hypocrisy. They know no bounds in that area!

Once again you don't seem to get it with AlQida. There are a few problems with "attacking AlQida."

1) How do you identify who AlQida is? They don't have a uniform. I don't think they have any type of symbol tattooed on them like gangs do. And just because one person is a member of the group doesn't mean they did violence. It's likely they probably would based on the group's history with violence and using it as a weapon but you can't arrest someone until they do an attack.

2) Where do you attack them at? Their headquarters? That's currently in Pakistan. We're friends with Pakistan are we not? So do you think Pakistan's president is going to let us attack them? They not long ago made an agreement with BinLadin and his group that if they didn't do any attacks within the country they can stay. I haven't heard about them being kicked out so I'm assuming they haven't done anything within Pakistan.

3) Even if you went after the leaders what about the other members? They are all over the world and are growing every day. Terrorism can only happen if you have money. Last term in my Criminology class I did a paper on terrorism and financing it. I learned through my research that if you don't have the money you can't do a terrorist act. You need to have some heavy duty explosives to make any type of impact on a government and to have those explosives you need money. Right now these groups like AlQida are getting a lot of their money through donations. From what I do know about Islam charity is a big deal just like with other Abrahamic religions and AlQida has manipulated his supporters well into donating to his cause. Of course his family is also very wealthy so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets money from them even though they're officially not supposed to be communicating with each other. It was reported that BinLadin's family did show up to one of his sons getting married. The best way to stop a group from doing terrorism is to bleed them dry of money.

4) Even if you kill the major players in AlQida you have to remember they are fighting not a physical battle but a spiritual battle. How can you comepete with that? This is why you have to use the laws that are available wherever an AlQida member is and does an attack. Use our resources against them and their resources. You are thinking about this militarily but they are thinking about this spiritualy. These are people who are radicals with their spiritual beliefs and when you have radicals you have no compromise. AlQida uses religion and the mentality of "us vs them." You aren't going to win them over to stop attacking you by killing them and taking over their lands etc. Two terms ago in my "world politics" class I saw a live satelite seminar by Reza Aslan who wrote the book "No god but God" and he made this point: to win you have to stop fighting. They (AlQida) believe they are the "true believers" and their "beef" is with other Muslims.

5) Another issue you have with AlQida is their "leadership." BinLadin is seen as a key and important figure with AlQida however Aslan pointed out in his seminar that BinLadin doesn't even make it to the top ten AlQida related website's as a leader. Who is their leader? How do you know who their leader is? AlQida doesn't have a key leader who you can go after. They are not like other army's in that sense. There are multiple wars going on with AlQida so it's hard to tell who is doing what and where the leadership is.

 

[LittlePinky82]

source please?

It's called common sense.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Yes, it may sometimes be difficult to identify the enemy. That sometimes happens in war. That doesn't mean that you don't do it. The alternative is to remain vulnerable to being attacked again--like we are right now. It's our job to destroy Al Qaeda. The fact that we haven't is absolutely shameful. We defeated the Nazis, Italy and Japan in less time than we've been fooling around invading the wrong country and leaving the actual enemy to grow stronger.

I also wanted to address this.

Nazis- Had a Uniform and were a part of the international community as a country. They had rules to abide by with international law.

Japan- Same thing as the Nazi's.

AlQida- They are not a country. Have no uniform and don't care about international laws at all. They are all over the world and have no key leadership. Who are you going to attack? Where are you going to attack? How are you going to prove someone is a part of AlQida? You can keep saying over and over again it's war and we have to attack them. Yet you provide no details. Just rightwing rehtoric.