Should Bin Laden have been given a trial?

UglyBolloxFace

I'm split on this issue really. On the one hand he spouted confessions in videos, but on the other hand if they stop giving trials here well then where does it stop?

Do you think they should have tried harder to seize him and put him on trial, or do you agree with what happened?

Overheal

Oh ffs..

theboss80

He got one with Man Utd IIRC

chin_grin

First I have to believe that it actually happened because the whole story reeks of bullsh!t.

W.Shakes-Beer

Bit late now.

Lapin

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Do you think they should have tried harder to seize him and put him on trial....

Nope, they got it right.

Shoot the fúcker first - then ask questions later.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Yeah a trial...............by fire!

dvpower

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Do you think they should have tried harder to seize him and put him on trial, or do you agree with what happened?

I think he had ample oportunity to turn himself in.

zero19

USA! USA!

Ghandee

Who the fück is Bin Laden, and what's he supposed to have done?

Aishae

it crossed my mind but if they HAD kept him in jail - even a secluded spot - there would have been all sorts of rescue attempts that possibly included kidnapping officials/ their families (for example) in order to get him released.

as well as that it was the first real chance theyd gotten at him

guitarzero

Well, first you have to give reason for being under arrest, till now theres no evidence he had any involvement in 9/11.

BOHtox

I'll answer this. No!!!!!

pragmatic1

I dont even think he should have been killed. They've risked making him a martyr.

Niall09

theboss80 wrote: »

He got one with Man Utd IIRC

I heard he was deadly in the air.

chin_grin

Also in before anyone goes on about THAT photo.

Agonist

Ghandee wrote: »

Who the fück is Bin Laden, and what's he supposed to have done?

No, they're talking about a dangerous wheelie bin laden with explosives

Killer Wench

Trial before whom?

Would it be an international court? Or, would it be a military tribunal?

Either way, he would have certain rights. He would be innocent until proven otherwise. There would be procedure that would have to be followed. And, there would have been the chance that he could have been found "not guilty" of his crimes or have the case dismissed with prejudice or something else, that could have set him free.

jethro081

i think there is also a case to be made for the idea that the US Government would not be keen on the world hearing what Osama would have to say were he to appear on a witness stand. They have proven in the past that they are pretty willing to sell weapons to, well, almost anyone, so with that in mind, i'd say a trial may not have been a real option for the yanks.

i personally think that were it possible to take him alive, then they should have done so, as not to do so is against international law, and sets a pretty poor precedent, but if taking him alive was genuinely not achievable, then i have little issue with them shooting him in the face.

Mr.Crinklewood

chin_grin wrote: »

First I have to believe that it actually happened because the whole story reeks of bullsh!t.

The way they disposed of the body smells fishy to me.

HellFireClub

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I'm split on this issue really. On the one hand he spouted confessions in videos, but on the other hand if they stop giving trials here well then where does it stop?

Do you think they should have tried harder to seize him and put him on trial, or do you agree with what happened?

Hmm, I hear ya, I'm all for due process and fair procedure....

HOWEVER...

All trials start with one question: "How do you plead"???

In this case, there was an admission of guilt from the outset, now not in relation to some small little insignificant matter, but the death of thousands of innocent helpless victims.

He got away lightly I think with a bullet in the face and dropped into the sea.

If I was Obama, I'd have had him hung drawn and quartered, and f*cked into the Hudson...

HellFireClub

jethro081 wrote: »

i think there is also a case to be made for the idea that the US Government would not be keen on the world hearing what Osama would have to say were he to appear on a witness stand. They have proven in the past that they are pretty willing to sell weapons to, well, almost anyone, so with that in mind, i'd say a trial may not have been a real option for the yanks.

i personally think that were it possible to take him alive, then they should have done so, as not to do so is against international law, and sets a pretty poor precedent, but if taking him alive was genuinely not achievable, then i have little issue with them shooting him in the face.

There are crimes for which you are not entitled to a trail. This is one of those crimes I think...

AudreyHepburn

Ghandee wrote: »

Who the fück is Bin Laden, and what's he supposed to have done?

Please tell me you're joking?

In response to the thread, I'm all for fair trials but for Bin Laden I'd make an exception because he certainly did nt give a damn about the rights of the 1000s of people whose deaths he caused, and openly admitted responsability via videotap.

TeddyTedson

Imagine if Ben seeked forgiveness from everyone and became a big music star. Wrote epic songs about his new found love of the western world, and became a huge icon.

HellFireClub

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking?

In response to the thread, I'm all for fair trials but for Bin Laden I'd make an exception because he certainly did nt give a damn about the rights of the 1000s of people whose deaths he caused, and openly admitted responsability via videotap.

Don't feed the trolls!

ColeTrain

Nah, if OJ got off then Osama could.

dvpower

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Imagine if Ben seeked forgiveness from everyone and became a big music star. Wrote epic songs about his new found love of the western world, and became a huge icon.

Or if he found religion - that's how they usually get away with stuff.


















(or maybe not)

catbear

Did the people in the twin towers get a trial?

Kold

Yes. If only to keep the US military honest. The way that this was carried out stinks.

Kold

catbear wrote: »

Did the people in the twin towers get a trial?

Who gives a f*ck? Seperate matter. Shall we just do away with law altogether?

Honestly, what a stupid comment.

keithc83

Osama Bin Laden got what he deserved. Too many times there have been needless trials for someone that was guilty of a crime, but because of the trial, ended up getting off totally free.
He was guilty of many crimes and it saved taxpayer's money having to prove it in a Court of Justice.
Good riddance.

johngalway

Trial? You must be kidding. Shoot him in the eye I say, oh wait, Goody

TeddyTedson

dvpower wrote: »

Or if he found religion - that's how they usually get away with stuff.

















(or maybe not)

Ah good ol' Religion. Is there anything it can't do?

minidazzler

The best decision was made in that kill no capture order. A trial would be far too risky given that it would probably be before the Hague, so Americans would not be happy with that, and there would be at least a couple of nut jobs willing to take a pot-shot.

That's nothing then on his radical supporters who would attack everywhere they could think to try to get him.

Being put against a wall and having a bullet put in his head was the best he could expect. And the safest option for everyone.

Spunk84

Saddam Hussein had a trial and he ended dead so Bin Laden wouldnt have a chance. Plus the US wouldn't want him to talk;)

dvpower

catbear wrote: »

Did the people in the twin towers get a trial?

why? What are they alleged to have done?

DonalK1981

Niall09 wrote: »

I heard he was deadly in the air.

I hear he was a good shot stopper too...

catbear

Kold wrote: »

Who gives a f*ck? Seperate matter. Shall we just do away with law altogether?

Honestly, what a stupid comment.

It is at the heart of the matter. You may not care about Osama's victims but their deaths are the reason these threads exist. What's stupid about that?

Law is meaningless without enforcement.

ColeTrain

keithc83 wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden got what he deserved. Too many times there have been needless trials for someone that was guilty of a crime, but because of the trial, ended up getting off totally free.
He was guilty of many crimes and it saved taxpayer's money having to prove it in a Court of Justice.
Good riddance.

Isn't the whole point of a trial not to find out if someone is guilty or not. They should be all equally important, not done for the sake of it.

DonalK1981

keithc83 wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden got what he deserved. Too many times there have been needless trials for someone that was guilty of a crime, but because of the trial, ended up getting off totally free.
He was guilty of many crimes and it saved taxpayer's money having to prove it in a Court of Justice.
Good riddance.

Saved money? They spent Billions if not TRILLIONS looking for him.

HellFireClub

keithc83 wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden got what he deserved. Too many times there have been needless trials for someone that was guilty of a crime, but because of the trial, ended up getting off totally free.
He was guilty of many crimes and it saved taxpayer's money having to prove it in a Court of Justice.
Good riddance.

+1, Trials are for queers....

Kold

catbear wrote: »

It is at the heart of the matter. You may not care about Osama's victims but their deaths are the reason these threads exist. What's stupid about that?

Law is meaningless without enforcement.

Fact is, an illegal war, billions of dollars and 1million+ dead civilians later makes for a pretty costly execution. The US has crossed far too many lines. No wonder terrorists exist.

teddy_303

Just would have been interesting to hear what he had to say, unlike some...

Dangerous Man

They should have raped him. Video-taped the proceedings, spread it all over the internet and then dumped Bin Laden in some nutty Islamic-fundamentalist state. Forty lashes for aul Binzo - cast out of Al qaeed.. kdaa... Al Hadoken - or whatever and shamed for the rest of his life. Death is too good for him.

A trial? Why? So he can sit up on a witness stand spouting more Islamic fundamentalist shit for months on end while other terrorist nutjobs fap over it and go and bomb more innocent people? No. Killing that scumbag was the right thing to do.

Whahey!

.... are you serious??
ha

No is the answer.

DOC09UNAM

Should have executed him and kept it quiet.

The fact he may now seen as a martyr, is not good.

Nor is the fact that retaliation is a high possibility.

catbear

dvpower wrote: »

why? What are they alleged to have done?

They were guilty in Osama's eyes of been the enemy. If it were otherwise then his targets would have been military and government only.

Turtyturd

catbear wrote: »

They were guilty in Osama's eyes of been the enemy. If it were otherwise then his targets would have been military and government only.

Don't suppose you have any numbers on civillians killed by US and British troops in the middle east?

catbear

Kold wrote: »

an illegal war

Was Osama's war legal or illegal? Action is the precedent and law the new establishment.

ColeTrain

Dangerous Man wrote: »

They should have raped him. Video-taped the proceedings, spread it all over the internet and then dumped Bin Laden in some nutty Islamic-fundamentalist state. Forty lashes for aul Binzo - cast out of Al qaeed.. kdaa... Al Hadoken - or whatever and shamed for the rest of his life. Death is too good for him.

A trial? Why? So he can sit up on a witness stand spouting more Islamic fundamentalist shit for months on end while other terrorist nutjobs fap over it and go and bomb more innocent people? No. Killing that scumbag was the right thing to do.

You've missed the whole point of a trial. Whoever gave the order to kill Bin Laden made the decision of judge and jury on a persons life. No one should have that much power, it contradicts what democracy is all about.
Very ironic too that the country that proclaims itself as being the land of the free didn't give the most famous terrorist out there a trial. Not very good for the image it's trying to spread around the world.

For what it's worth I've no sympathy for Bin Laden but he should have been captured, tried and executed just like Hussein.

jethro081

HellFireClub wrote: »

There are crimes for which you are not entitled to a trail. This is one of those crimes I think...

i cant agree with you on this i'm afraid,

while some crimes are so heinous, that we do not have a punishment harsh enough to equal them, i balk at the idea that some crimes can be considered beyond legal prudence.

the purpose of a trial is to establish the guilt or innocence of an individual or a group, the crime they stand accused of should have no bearing on whether or not they get a trial. Legal process exists for a reason, and if those in power can decide who deserves a trial and who doesn't, no matter what the situation, i find that a scary precedent.

Even the surviving Nazi Leaders got trials in the wake of WW2, as did Saddam, and their guilt was established to a much greater degree than that of Osama, as they were leaders of states which perpetrated disgusting atrocities, whilst the role Osama actually played in the workings of Al Quaeda has not been fully established.

also, to the poster who stated that Osama was this generations Hitler, i find that statement to be a bit strong, as Osama can not be viewed as being on anything resembling the same scale as hitler, not even for a second.