Implications of Bin Laden's death?

metrovelvet · 07-05-2011 01:20PM

gandalf wrote: »

Yes it is the way civilised nations normally deal with criminals which is what I would classify OBL and his lackeys as.

And who labelled him as a combatant? The US authorities, they have used that term to carry out an awful lot of human rights abuse since September 11 including acts against a number of people who after the fact turned out to have nothing to do with the crimes they were accused of. In fact most of these people have never been formally charged.

Care to list the good things the act has brought in?

Again Al Q as you call it is over estimated in importance. All it is and was is a communications network between a whole group of disparate terrorist organisations whose only real link was being Islamic in some nature. It certainly is not the bogeyman that US have projected it to be.

Fair enough that is a valid observation but I wouldn't even label them as lefties they are just rebelling for the sake of it.

So shooting an unarmed man in the face is a legitimate way for a country that preaches the rule of law to other countries to behave.

Personally I prefer someone to stand trial, be shown for the coward and criminal that they are and then to be punished based on the judgement of that court.

Personally I believe these actions have cheated the cause of justice and replaced it was the easy base act of vengeance. An act that is not becoming of a nation that believes it is a template of democracy for others to follow. I suppose I am in the minority that believes a civilised country should have standards that are higher than those of common criminals who masquerade as terrorist.

He declared war on the US. He labelled himself as a combatant.

gandalf · 07-05-2011 01:28PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

He declared war on the US. He labelled himself as a combatant.

No the US Authorities came up with the term "Enemy Combatant" as a mechanism to get around the Geneva convention when dealing with captured enemies in Afghanistan.

metrovelvet · 07-05-2011 02:57PM

Where would have liked to see him tried and by whom?

gandalf · 08-05-2011 08:47AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where would have liked to see him tried and by whom?

Well there are choices. He had been directly linked to the bombing in Kenya in 1998 so thats one choice, then it could have been in New York or Washington for the September the 11th attacks or you could have had him stand trial in The Hague.

There are some fairly high profile people questioning the legality of this action.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/06/3210195.htm

A lawyer who served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials after World War II says Osama bin Laden should have been put on trial.

American lawyer Benjamin Ferencz, now 91, has written a letter to the New York Times, questioning whether the death of the terrorist leader was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination.

The following part is exactly the point I am trying to make in a far more clumsy fashion than Ferencz.

He says the Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler's worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail.

And 65 years later he says the US should again have supported a trial of the world's most wanted international criminal bin Laden.

"It's a right that we give to every mass murderer and always have," he told the BBC.

"This is what distinguishes us from the tyrants."

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 09:06AM

How funny that an American Nuremburg trial lawyer thought Bin Laden should get a trial when its questionable in the first place that Americans as allies and not a neutral nation should have been on the Nuremburg trials. I would question the legality of Ferencz being on the Nuremburg trials.

If he were tried in NY state for the twin towers he would have gotten the chair anyway.

gandalf · 08-05-2011 09:14AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

How funny that an American Nuremburg trial lawyer thought Bin Laden should get a trial when its questionable in the first place that Americans as allies and not a neutral nation should have been on the Nuremburg trials. I would question the legality of Ferencz being on the Nuremburg trials.

65 Years late with that objection there I'm afraid

Apart from that dubious objection do you have any other issues with the position that Ferencz has taken?

If he were tried in NY state for the twin towers he would have gotten the chair anyway.

I would have had no problem with that at all, after been found guilty over a proper trial of course.

You never answered my query on what good things that Patriot act brought in. I am curious to see what you consider them to be?

CptMackey · 08-05-2011 09:20AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

How funny that an American Nuremburg trial lawyer thought Bin Laden should get a trial when its questionable in the first place that Americans as allies and not a neutral nation should have been on the Nuremburg trials. I would question the legality of Ferencz being on the Nuremburg trials.

If he were tried in NY state for the twin towers he would have gotten the chair anyway.

Are you saying that the Americans shouldn't have been allowed to be a part of the trials? If so neither should the British or the Russians. But then who would have done it?

As for Osama he got what he deserved. You can't live by the sword and expect to be treated well when you organisation beheads their captives. He was too dangerous a person to give a trial to and he also didn't deserve 1. Not every tyrant and terriost should be afforded the rights of law that they choose to ignore.

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 09:31AM

gandalf wrote: »

65 Years late with that objection there I'm afraid Apart from that dubious objection do you have any other issues with the position that Ferencz has taken?

I would have had no problem with that at all, after been found guilty over a proper trial of course.

You never answered my query on what good things that Patriot act brought in. I am curious to see what you consider them to be?

I'm just challenging is authority. The NY Times mentioned him as a Nuremburg Trial lawyer to give him moral clout, whereas he may have none, but you cant bring that kind of thing up with the NY Times.

RE patroit act: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/irr_hr_winter02_podesta.html

Explains it better than I could.

Jonny7 · 08-05-2011 09:41AM

CptMackey wrote: »

Are you saying that the Americans shouldn't have been allowed to be a part of the trials? If so neither should the British or the Russians. But then who would have done it?

As for Osama he got what he deserved. You can't live by the sword and expect to be treated well when you organisation beheads their captives. He was too dangerous a person to give a trial to and he also didn't deserve 1. Not every tyrant and terriost should be afforded the rights of law that they choose to ignore.

Its called "a test of our principles"

We are saying, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, except for... x, y and z

and we make these little clauses in times of war, or national situation, or whatever.

However.. personally, I feel our system of justice, like democracy, isn't perfect.. and if Saddam had been tried by independants, in an indepedant country, due to nature of trial, he could've been found innocent!

Which is just not acceptable.

So I believe, with this knowledge, of the show trial, and all claptrap, they just went and shot him, bury him at sea, etc, yes its not very principled - but they can always use the bank robber excuse - they went to capture him but he was dangerous, people came at them, he got shot.

Maybe in 200 years we'll be all so perfectly enlightened as to act upon our principles always, but until then paedophiles will get beaten up in jail, scumbags will be roughed up by police, and people like Uday Hussein will just be shot, etc, etc

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 10:03AM

CptMackey wrote: »

Are you saying that the Americans shouldn't have been allowed to be a part of the trials? If so neither should the British or the Russians. But then who would have done it?

As for Osama he got what he deserved. You can't live by the sword and expect to be treated well when you organisation beheads their captives. He was too dangerous a person to give a trial to and he also didn't deserve 1. Not every tyrant and terriost should be afforded the rights of law that they choose to ignore.

I'm saying it's questionable because we were not neutral. I dont know who would have done it or should have, but technically the allies should not have.

If the US did put Osama on trial people would be complaining that it should not be the US conducting it. But as I said, you want to follow Bin Laden's law, behead him live on the internet.

gandalf · 08-05-2011 10:34AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm just challenging is authority. The NY Times mentioned him as a Nuremburg Trial lawyer to give him moral clout, whereas he may have none, but you cant bring that kind of thing up with the NY Times.

It was ABC Australia that mentioned that and it is relevant because that was the largest trial of mass murderers in history so the input of someone who was involved in that is very pertinent.

RE patroit act: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/irr_hr_winter02_podesta.html

Explains it better than I could.

I did not ask for that. I asked you based on your previous input of "The patriot act has some good things it in and some pretty crappy things got tagged along in it" to this thread to list those good things in your opinion?

I have a feeling you actually do not know what they are. I reckon that a lot of people would say the same thing but when you actually try and get them to list the "good things" they will be hard pushed to do so as you appear to be.

OBL and the September the 11th attacks are the very reason that the Patriot act came into being therefore now that OBL is gone and the threat to the states has been diminished by actions in Afghanistan it is a prudent question to ask when should the Patriot Act be abolished.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 10:49AM

Well, I think its good it had a four year sunset where things had to be reviewed.

I also think it was good to have better links between intelligence and local law enforcement. The US has an incredibly complex system between state, local and federal legal systems which needed more fluid communications.

The worst thing about the patriot act imo is that it have low level people with little authority to get off on themselves throwing their weight around. Hard to explain unless you have to live with it. The other thing about it is it sets an example for local and municipal leaders to make up crazy **** as they go along, like Bloomberg and his handbag investigations in the subways. ffs.

The sentiments in the patriot act were already in the air under Clinton with the clipper chip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

I would say the wounded Pentagon and the towers and the plane hijackings upped the momentum on this kind of thing. And people were willing to sacrifice their privacy to feel safe. I think its very hard for people to understand what it means for Americans to have the Pentagon hit.

OBL is gone, but the threats to the US are never gone. It's the price of admission for being a superpower, you have enemies.

Laminations · 08-05-2011 10:57AM

Have any Al Qaeda members been put on trial for terrorist acts? Has Al Qaeda been deemed a terrorist organisation in international courts? I'm sure there have been plenty of court cases to establish in law the illegality of the organisation, an organisation in which bin Laden was recognised as leader, and was the self professed leader. His leadership of an illegal terrorist organisation makes him guilty. Are those stating he should have been tried questioning/doubting his affiliations with Al Qaeda? A court needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt. It is already beyond reasonable doubt. The Nuremberg trials had an aim to demonstrate the acts and affiliations of 'high ups' who were far more anonymous and who were 'accused'. They needed to make the case that these men were Nazis, that they were guilty of war crimes, that they acted of their own free will and were not coerced. They needed to establish guilt. It isn't an accusation that bin Laden was leader of Al Qaeda, it is fact. It isn't an accusation that Al Qaeda are an illegal organisation, that has been established in court.

The man got what was coming.

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 11:27AM

Where would you like to see the alleged and established member of Al Q put on trial and by whom?

You might want to read up on the ethical questions around the Nuremburg trials and how that model worked.

The crimes in the Nuremburg trials werent actually crimes until AFTER the fact. They were also conducted by the enemies and took place in the symbolic birthplace of the nazi organisation.

Would you like to see them put on trial in a Taliban state where Taliban law applies?

gandalf · 08-05-2011 11:41AM

Already answered that. He should have been put to trial where the crimes took place.

The Nuremburg trials comparison is interesting. If you can put men on trial who murdered millions then it stands to reason that you could do so for people who have killed less unless of course the US was worried what would come out in a trial?

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 11:48AM

gandalf wrote: »

Already answered that. He should have been put to trial where the crimes took place.

The Nuremburg trials comparison is interesting. If you can put men on trial who murdered millions then it stands to reason that you could do so for people who have killed less unless of course the US was worried what would come out in a trial?

You'd have to have a very mobile court for that. NY State, DC, UP in the SKY, the internet, London, Spain...Pennsylvania...

The people put on trial in Nuremburg had to be proven to be Nazis and their crimes, although not established in law yet as crimes, had to be proven to be done by them. We dont need to establish that proof with OBL.

If you want to follow the Nuremburg model, the trial would have to take place in Afghanistan.

Jonny7 · 08-05-2011 11:49AM

Laminations wrote: »

Have any Al Qaeda members been put on trial for terrorist acts? Has Al Qaeda been deemed a terrorist organisation in international courts? I'm sure there have been plenty of court cases to establish in law the illegality of the organisation, an organisation in which bin Laden was recognised as leader, and was the self professed leader. His leadership of an illegal terrorist organisation makes him guilty. Are those stating he should have been tried questioning/doubting his affiliations with Al Qaeda? A court needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt. It is already beyond reasonable doubt. The Nuremberg trials had an aim to demonstrate the acts and affiliations of 'high ups' who were far more anonymous and who were 'accused'. They needed to make the case that these men were Nazis, that they were guilty of war crimes, that they acted of their own free will and were not coerced. They needed to establish guilt. It isn't an accusation that bin Laden was leader of Al Qaeda, it is fact. It isn't an accusation that Al Qaeda are an illegal organisation, that has been established in court.

The man got what was coming.

Nuremburg was not a 'trial' at such, just a witchhunt for Nazi's

If it was a real trial, then people like Air Marshal Arthur Harris would've been up in the dock for dropping incendiary devices on largely timber cities like Dresden with the sole purpose of creating firestorms to kill more civilians.

gandalf · 08-05-2011 11:58AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You'd have to have a very mobile court for that. NY State, DC, UP in the SKY, the internet, London, Spain...Pennsylvania...

The people put on trial in Nuremburg had to be proven to be Nazis and their crimes, although not established in law yet as crimes, had to be proven to be done by them. We dont need to establish that proof with OBL.

If you want to follow the Nuremburg model, the trial would have to take place in Afghanistan.

Choose one crime, one location and charge him. It's simple really.

If you are a country that preaches to all others about how the rule of law and democracy should rule the day and not mob law then you should be able to lead by example. Instead the US shows that because it is a super power these ideals do not apply to them.

If I take what you are saying then a government can decide if someone is guilty and take action accordingly without the legal checks of a trial. So if we move that on a few years we could have a situation where people who are accused of lesser crimes are executed in the same way based on the old "National Security" chestnut. That is a recipe for fascism which is ironic considering the sacrifices made by the US in WW2 fighting fascism.

metrovelvet · 08-05-2011 12:02PM

His guilt has already been established. I guess you wanted to give him more time to wreak more destruction?

Laminations · 08-05-2011 12:05PM

gandalf wrote: »

The Nuremburg trials comparison is interesting. If you can put men on trial who murdered millions then it stands to reason that you could do so for people who have killed less unless of course the US was worried what would come out in a trial?

Trying to create doubt about bin Ladens role in 9/11 still does not necessitate a trial. It is beyond reasonable doubt, hence remarks like yours are labelled conspiracy theories

Edit: Question - do you actually have any doubt bin Laden was involved in terrorist acts?

Mr.Micro · 08-05-2011 12:10PM

It makes me laugh, some posters on here saying if he had had a trial he could have got off, he got what was coming to him etc. The whole fundamentals of the law is that a case HAS TO BE PROVEN. If a case could not then the accused walks. So in the US everyone is found guilty if accused of a crime as a case does not have to be proven???? Is the US really a democracy? What if it started applying its methods of justice it uses abroad at home? The mind boggles. Serial killers in the US get a trial and rights.....the hypocrisy is infantile.

OBL was defunct anyway with all the popular people power uprisings in Tunisia,Egypt,Morocco etc where his messages have no effect, the effect here is a big boost for the current administration and a big shot in the arm for Obama to be re-elected.

gandalf · 08-05-2011 12:13PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

His guilt has already been established. I guess you wanted to give him more time to wreak more destruction?

No I wanted a civilised country to deal with a criminal in the civilised manner that they should have. Not to act like a pack of terrorists themselves.

Care to explain to me how he could have wreaked more destruction from a secure trial? To me that sounds like outright paranoia.

drkpower · 08-05-2011 12:13PM

gandalf wrote: »

If you are a country that preaches to all others about how the rule of law and democracy should rule the day and not mob law then you should be able to lead by example. Instead the US shows that because it is a super power these ideals do not apply to them.

The 'rule of law' in the kind of conflict that the US is having with Bin Laden/Al-Q has not yet been established. In that context, the rules of US criminal and civil law do not and cannot apply. In the context of that conflict, taking out a specific individual should be entirely permissable.

gandalf · 08-05-2011 12:15PM

Laminations wrote: »

Trying to create doubt about bin Ladens role in 9/11 still does not necessitate a trial. It is beyond reasonable doubt, hence remarks like yours are labelled conspiracy theories

Edit: Question - do you actually have any doubt bin Laden was involved in terrorist acts?

I believe he was involved in Terrorist acts but I believe the best way to deal with that is in a court and then punishment to follow on from that.

Question for you. Do you believe in executions by states without the due process (and therefore the checks) of a trial?

gandalf · 08-05-2011 12:17PM

drkpower wrote: »

The 'rule of law' in the kind of conflict that the US is having with Bin Laden/Al-Q has not yet been established. In that context, the rules of US criminal and civil law do not and cannot apply. In the context of that conflict, taking out a specific individual should be entirely permissable.

Hang on, if he is accused of masterminding the September the 11th attacks then US criminal & civil law does apply.

drkpower · 08-05-2011 12:21PM

gandalf wrote: »

Hang on, if he is accused of masterminding the September the 11th attacks then US criminal & civil law does apply.

Did US criminal & civil law apply to the atttacks on Pearl Harbour? Why was there no trial in that respect?:rolleyes:

In the context of a conflict between the US and Al-Q which has yet to be properly defined, the US system of criminal justice is not the 'rule of law' that applies (or at least it is not the only 'rule of law' that applies).

gandalf · 08-05-2011 12:26PM

drkpower wrote: »

Did US criminal & civil law apply to the atttacks on Pearl Harbour? Why was there no trial in that respect?:rolleyes:

That was an attack by a country as an act of war.

September the 11th was an attack by a group of terrorists not directly affiliated to any country. People were murdered therefore he could have been charged :rolleyes:

In the context of a conflict between the US and Al-Q which has yet to be properly defined, the US system of criminal justice is not the 'rule of law' that applies (or at least it is not the only 'rule of law' that applies).

Either a crime was committed or it wasn't. There was more than enough evidence to charge him under US law in New York or Washington.

drkpower · 08-05-2011 12:30PM

gandalf wrote: »

That was an attack by a country as an act of war.

September the 11th was an attack by a group of terrorists not directly affiliated to any country..

Precisely; the US have taken the attacks to be an 'act of war' by a non-nation State. The rule of law to be applied to such a situation has not yet been fullly developed. But to suggest that the only rule of law that can apply is US criminal law in respect of what is an act of war is absurd.

gandalf wrote: »

Either a crime was committed or it wasn't. There was more than enough evidence to charge him under US law in New York or Washington.

They could have charged him; however it is a crime and an act of war - and they have chosen to pursue him in the context of a conflict between the US & Al-Q, which is perfectly acceptable.

gandalf · 08-05-2011 12:39PM

drkpower wrote: »

Precisely; the US have taken the attacks to be an 'act of war' by a non-nation State. The rule of law to be applied to such a situation has not yet been fullly developed. But to suggest that the only rule of law that can apply is US criminal law in respect of what is an act of war is absurd.

Act of War by a non-nation state is doublespeak that would look perfectly at home in George Orwells 1984.

So reading between the lines you are saying the US is making this up legally as they go along. That is exactly what worries me about their and their allies actions.

They could have charged him; however it is a crime and an act of war - and they have chosen to pursue him in the context of a conflict between the US & Al-Q, which is perfectly acceptable.

In your opinion.

In mine and a lot of others it sets a worrying precedent. In future if a state wants to execute someone without due course then they can use this precedent, all they have to do is label someone as a terrorist and send in the kill squad.

drkpower · 08-05-2011 12:46PM

gandalf wrote: »

Act of War by a non-nation state is doublespeak that would look perfectly at home in George Orwells 1984..

`
You are taking a very narrow 16-20th century view of international law. In a world where non-nation States can possess the ability to wage war far more effectively than actual nation states, the concept of 'war' only applying to nation states is utterly naive.

There is no doubt that this area of international law is in its infancy, but to suggest that states are constrained in how they react to an 'act of war' by a non-nation state just because international law has not caught up with the reality of the world is clearly misguided.

All of this is not to say that international law should not be further developed - and quickly - to set some boundaries on this type of action, but to suggest that, in the meantime, the US should be constrained by obselete concepts of international law, while it may be your opinion, is clearly wrong.

Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Comments