Dean Not Ready to Sentence Bin Laden

[peterh]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-dean-bin-laden,0,5923919.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines


CONCORD, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says it's premature to recommend what penalty Osama bin Laden should face before he's been legally determined to be guilty of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Asked whether bin Laden should be tried in the United States and put to death, Dean told the Concord Monitor: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Dean said he plans to keep reminding Democrats that he, unlike his major rivals for the nomination, opposed the Iraq war, in spite of polls showing the vast majority of the American public supporting the invasion at the time.



Gee….it would be kinda nice to get back to that old idea of jury trials and that archaic concept of “innocent before guilty”. I wonder if that’s still a viable idea in the red states?

[scintlgst]

1. Ridiculous

Bin Laden is the same as the pirates of old on the high seas. When you catch them you hold a fast, summary trial and hang them. End of story.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. That's not how it works

like Milosevic and Nazi war criminals, someone like Bin Laden goes before a world court. The US-despite being the vicim of Al Quada-does not have jurisdiction nor the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

[scintlgst]

7. Sez who?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. My goodness, you have no grasp of history, law or precedent do you?

There was this civil war in the former Yugoslavia from 1991-95 in which hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and a smaller number of Croats were murdered with the support of Slobodan Milosevic, then-president of Serbia. He was brought to trial at the Hague and sentenced.

And there was this conflict from 1941-45 called World War II, and if you don't know anything about what traspired after the end of the war, I suggest you stop listening to Rush and google "Nuremburg Trials".

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scintlgst]

56. Please point out where I said that or retract it.

[groovedaddy]

60. Milosevic is currently on trail at the Hague

He has yet to be found guilty or sentenced.

[foreigner]

133. World War II was from 1939-45

And as already mentioned Slobodan Milosevic is still on trial, yet to found guilty or sentenced. Wesley Clark was there about 2 weeks ago to testify.

[stopbush]

18. Check your copy of the Constitution.

Any treaties the USA makes with foreign countries are binding as US law.

[Zhade]

27. Which is exactly why invading Iraq was illegal, incidentally.

Which thus makes Bush a traitor.

Believe it or not, I've had to argue to convince progressives of this salient fact.

[scintlgst]

32. LOL Who's going to arrest us? God?

Not well developed in your opinons yet are you?

[0rganism]

42. Now justice itself emanates from the barrel of a gun?

Even Mao Zedung didn't go that far, he said "political power".

Your opinions are, apparently, quite "well developed" -- perhaps so well developed that you stopped questioning them years ago.

[scintlgst]

51. He is a military target

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janx]

50. Bush is as good as gone.

Deal with it.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scintlgst]

64. I am right here

What I won't do is attempt to categorize you when you make good points.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

71. At least he makes points-you're not making ANY points

that aren't typical right-wing sputum.

[way2tacky]

73. What is

a freeper? Forgive me - I'm new to these forums.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

80. A fascist who posts on the following website:

http://www.freerepublic.com/

[Zhade]

110. Someone who shares this kind of sentiment:

PATRIOTISM: Love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.

I do not believe "dissenting" or "assenting" to the actions or policies of one's government constitute "patriotism".

Blind dissension and blind assention are in fact, UNpatriotic. IMHO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=960025

[Zhade]

87. Your attitude was reflected in a t-shirt I once saw...

Sadly, while that was rather funny, your obvious regressive stance toward justice is not.

[mouse7]

116. Last I checked, no method for govenment lynching in US Code

You have to have govenment regs to do a govenment lynching, and we don't have those...

What kinda tree would we throw the noose over...

How thick does the tree limb the noose hangs off have to be...

Rope... hemp or nylon? What diameter rope...

[mmm]

3. Did Rush say that?

(And did you memorize it verbatim?)

[scintlgst]

9. You tell me

I bet you listen to him much, MUCH more than I do.

[Bandit]

5. Spoken by a "True" American

No such thing as innocent until Proven guilty in the America we now live in. Hoorah for us we are soo superior.

[scintlgst]

11. So Osama is innocent?

[Occulus]

13. Until proven guilty.

I lack the necessary unbiased attitude to sit on his jury, though. I would suppose most here do as well.

[scintlgst]

16. So if we can't find an "unbiased" jury he goes free?

[w13rd0]

20. Hell, some of us would just like to see an actual investigation...

...that doesn't seem like too much to ask. Hey, just a few hours ago, you were a "scientologist for Dean", now you are, what? Haha, too funny.

[0rganism]

91. There's always the opportunity to seek a change of venue

The BEST way to deal with Usama bin Laden is to put him on trial in the Hague. That way, evidence can be presented and heard, the trial itself can be public, and there will be NO DOUBT among reasonable people as to whether he was railroaded. Among other things, this avoids turning UBL into a martyred hero.

[mouse7]

118. Minor adjustment... since UN is in NYC, we can do it at UN

I think that trial should be in NYC.

[0rganism]

28. The phrase is "presumed innocent"

It's a foundational premise of our formerly proud legal traditions. It applies to ALL humans, including potential murderers, rapists, thieves, and terrorists.

Usama bin Laden deserves no less of a trial than Timothy McVeigh.

[scintlgst]

31. So you want a mock trial and then hang him?

[0rganism]

36. How about a real trial?

Surely it isn't outside the scope of this once-great nation to be able to furnish him a nominally impartial jury, or extradict him to such a place where such can be found?

Or are you prepared to launch into a spirited defense of Mr. McVeigh? Was his trial "mock" by your standards?

Is nothing either good or bad but that thinking makes it so?

[scintlgst]

57. McVeigh was not a military target.

[ldf]

128. "So you want a mock trial and then hang him?"

so you want a mock democracy, and then crow about our moral superiority?

[TiredTexan]

131. It's clear that you have no respect for the rule of law

or the Constitution. You don't understand legal presumptions, or the right to trial by jury. The rules don't apply except to you and yours (like Rush).

The only way to spread democracy and the rule of law is by example.

Actually, I think you are a disrupter.

[RedSock]

6. wow i remember that

Wasn't it called "democracy"? ... Sigh ... Those were the good old days.

***

Dean could also point out that * has never given us any proof that UBL was behind 9/11. Only that "he did it because we say he did it." Sorry Governor Sh*t for Brains, I'm an adult and that's isn't good enough.

[pasadenaboy]

8. Is that scientologist justice?

No trial, some authority figure makes a decision on whether you can live or die without a trial? How enlightened.

[scintlgst]

12. Right, like a mad dog doesn't deserve rehabilitation

You shoot it quickly to save others.

[thebigidea]

23. ah yes, Elron's fine "ethics"

fueled by plenty of "pinks and grays"

[Zhade]

90. Considering that attitudes like yours kill innocent people...

...just be glad true patriots like ourselves don't stoop to your "ideals".

[Webster Green]

10. I thought we had made some progress since then.

How far back in history would you like to go to find laws, or lack of, that are cruel enough for you?

[scintlgst]

14. So if Osama was found innocent, that would be okay with you?

Just as long as he ahd a fair trial? Again, ridiculous.

BTW which candidate do you support?

[Bandit]

46. If he was found innocent by a fair trial we should kill him anyway???

I do believe you are on the wrong forum. People who feel like you usually post on Frei repubic. Your logic is that you were told by FOX News that he is guilty so why bother with anything else. We all know Fox is always truthful. :crazy:

[scintlgst]

59. I wouldn't know

Do you believe that Bin Laden is innocent?

[Bandit]

75. What do you say we give him a trial if we ever locate and catch him

Is that too much to ask of an "American"? Let the evidence be put forward. The way you talk you have seen all the evidence against him. I guess you are in a position of power that virtually no other country on earth is in. No other country other than England has seen any evidence what-so-ever. I guess Rush told you he is guilty so that is good enough for you.

[Zhade]

113. Here's a better question.

Do YOU know that he's guilty?

If so, show us the evidence, please! The White House is rather hesitant on doing that. I urge you to take your no doubt overwhelming, conclusive evidence of bin Laden's guilt to the DoJ, and we can close the case.

Go, go! For the good of the nation!

:eyes:

[peterh]

22. The critter is a regressive….

Like his idiot-in-chief, hates details, prefers hearsay that’s compatible with his limited ability to think on his own… :eyes:

[scintlgst]

30. I'm right here

I have a view that doesn't fall in lockstep with yours, that's for sure.

Is that why you feel the need to bash?

[peterh]

40. Your authoritarian type of justice…..

Is not in tune with our generally accepted and civilized way of determining innocence or guilt….so yeah, I feel I can readily bash you for your uncultured style.:grr:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. In your other flame fest you argued that many Scientologists were liberal

and open minded. Please explain what is so LIBERAL about rejecting one the MAINSTAYS of liberty...that it is the government's DUTY to establish guilt prior to removing liberty.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

19. She said many Scientologists were liberal and open-minded

but she didn't say she was one of them.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. If he were found innocent in a World Court it would obviously be

because insufficient evidence existed to implicate him in the crimes. Yes that would be fine with me.

[Zhade]

24. Such justice!

Fan of the old "drumhead tribunals", eh?

Go work on some history lessons before making "ridiculous" comments that reveal a lack of progressive thinking on a progressive message board, please.

[leesa]

26. You have no proof he did it but you plan to hang him.

Can you say lynching? Thought you could. There has never been anything but a smidge of circumstantial evidence linking OBL to 9-11. There is faaaar more evidence that the Bush Crime Family was involved. Are you also ready to hang them?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. No need to get nasty but

I would say that the person who needs the support of the cult to justify her existence is the one who needs therapy, not leesa.

[scintlgst]

39. Cult, acorrding to who? YOU who believes in 9/11 conspiracys? LOL

[Kathy in Cambridge]

45. I DON"T believe 9-11 conspiracies

don't go putting words in my mouth, scintlgst (aka freeper disruptor)

[0rganism]

So do you contend the 9/11 disaster was not the result of a conspiracy?

Really, I thought the official story assumed the Al Qaeda organization was somehow involved in covertly organizing a multiple hijacking, but perhaps you think it's all a coincidence.

Were those four planes hijacked at the same time by COINCIDENCE?

[scintlgst]

63. Not a conspriracy of Americans

[0rganism]

72. So, there were no Americans involved in the conspiracy?

Why do you find it unthinkable?

I seem to recall one American citizen John Walker Lindh, arrested on the field of battle, a member of the Taliban who had interactions with Al Qaeda and perhaps Usama bin Laden himself.

But perhaps that was mere myth, as no American could ever think to commit an act of terrorism against this great nation... Oh wait, that means the whole McVeigh thing was a sham, right? That fits in nicely with your "well developed" opinions.

[Zhade]

117. I am.

Provided we have a trial for them as well. Of course, the evidence of the White House's various treasons (Plame, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc etc) is far stronger than their case against the Bush family's old friend and CIA asset.

[shance]

78. I didnt realize we reinstated walking the plank.

Hey Captain Bly, you might want to cut back on the Long John Silvers and pirate movies for a while.

[mouse7]

114. Even the Israelis tried Eichman

If Isreal can put a Nazi War Criminal on trial, we have no case for doing any less.

[westman]

130. Couldn't have put it any better.

OBL "deserves" a military trial, followed by speedy execution (ASSUMING, of course, that he is found guilty).

[MercutioATC]

136. Wow! I'm glad YOU'RE not making these decisions!

...and I hope YOU never get accused of aiding terrorists. It's amazing how people don't seem to appreciate certain rights until they lose them...

[KittyWampus]

4. Too Bad When Matthew Asked Dean Whether Osama Should Be Tired In The Hague

Dean couldn't give a comprehensive answer... on National TV.

[Voltaire99]

105. About that, er, heroic Clark image in your signature...

If he's "forging a new path for America," why is he mired in old-fashioned imperial philosophy that calls for projecting US military force around the world as if by divine destiny, and why does he want an amendment to ban flag burning? Nothing very new about those old saws.

And why, if you don't mind me asking, is he "forging a new path" on a lightly snow-dusted sidewalk? The snow's barely up to the edge of his galoshes, but he's bent over as if he were trudging through a blizzard. Tough grind for ol' Wes, eh? ;-)

[Zhade]

21. YES! Exactly!

Hey, bin Laden may be responsible for 9/11.

Truth is, we simply don't know - and we have to take the traitors in the White House at their word that he planned, financed, and ordered the attacks.

I believe in guilty before proven innocent even for the worst of humanity, and without concrete evidence that bin Laden was the guy, and with the fact that so much of the Bushies "evidence" winds up fraudulent (Niger, anyone?), I simply cannot state categorically that bin Laden was the one.

If he is, why all the stonewalling by the Bushies? Why the never-released (and likely nonexistent) dossier of damning evidence proving bin Laden's guilt?

There is simply no reason to take the White House at its word, and every reason not to. This may hurt Dean a lot, but I think, in the long run, he has demonstrated a very good point - we don't convict on hearsay and rumor. Concrete, independent evidence is a start.

(dons flame-proof suit)

[way2tacky]

35. No, we know

that bin Laden is responsible. He's been behind terrorist attacks on the US for a decade now. If Clinton and Bush can BOTH agree on it, I'm inclined to believe.

Doesn't he have to be a UN member to be tried at the Hague? And he's not a US citizen, which makes him ineligible to reap the benefit of our judicial system. So what should happen to him?

[scintlgst]

38. Yes, he's nothing more than a pirate and that slurs pirtates

[Bandit]

54. And he's not a US citizen, which makes him ineligible to reap the benefit

What are you smoking? Any person in the United States gets the same treatment regardless of citizenship. You really need to question more of what Rush tells you. If a person is accused of a crime here they are given a fair trial. It makes no difference what country they come from. You are suggesting we no longer give people a fair trial and just execute them on the spot if someone somewhere says they are guilty. America I grieve for you. Do you ever question anything?

[scintlgst]

66. He is a military target

[mouse7]

119. scintlgst says: "lynch them furriners!"

[way2tacky]

69. Not sure what this means:

Posted by Bandit
You really need to question more of what Rush tells you.

[Bandit]

79. That is exactly what I mean

You need to question what you hear a bit more. You are making a fool out of yourself by posting things that are so easily disproved. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[way2tacky]

92. Bandit

Still not sure what Rush has to do with my opinion. I'll assume you're just trying to flame me for no reason and let you have the last word.

[Bandit]

97. Maybe I rushed to judgment

You sounded like you had Rush's sound-bites down pat. People in America deserve a fair trial and only Freepers seem to feel different. I guess when you voiced your opinion that Bin Laden didn't deserve a fair trial because he wasn't American I assumed you had been listening to Rush. It is one of his sound-bites. I apologize if I offended you. I know how offensive it is to be thought of as a Ditto-head. My other remarks stand as stated though.

[way2tacky]

98. I didn't say

that bin Laden didn't deserve a fair trial (although I don't think he needs a trial - Bill Clinton says he's guilty and that's good enough for me). I just questioned where it should be held.

[Sterling]

139. "Bill Clinton says he's guilty and that's good enough for me"

Oh Dear, you sure you wanna go with that one? I mean Bill had style and all but was not known for his honesty. And you would really rather rely on the word of one man than an actual trial? Why bother with a justice system at all. We could save loads by just appointing people to go around killing suspected criminals.

Sorry that is just as bad as the Bushbots.

[janx]

88. I'd prefer to find him first. That would be a start.

.

Chimpy can't even do that.

[Zhade]

122. Sorry. We don't KNOW he's responsible.

Until there is a trial, you and I only know what the White House tells us about his guilt.

In light of the WH's constant lies, why on Earth should we simply accept their word?

[way2tacky]

137. Two back to back Presidents

have had Americans killed by bin Laden's terrorist network. You can hate Bush all you want BUT Bill Clinton has said the EXACT same thing Bush has said - that bin Laden is behind the various terrorist attacks. I trust Clinton and there's no reason for him to back Bush on this other than that it's true.

[scintlgst]

25. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact

In 1949, US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote that Constitutional logic must be tempered with practical wisdom in such cases to avoid converting "the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Jackson was the Chief of Counsel for the United States at the Nuremberg war crimes trials.

[0rganism]

34. Whom do you want deciding who gets a fair trial and who doesn't?

John Ashcroft? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? George W. Bush?

Jackson's writing indicts the Bill of Rights as being no rights at all. If a right does not apply equally to those you disagree with, even your worst enemies, IT IS NO RIGHT AT ALL.

[scintlgst]

37. I would let the ranking military official

Who is on the scene dispense battlefield justice. He is a legitimate miltary target and it is a legitimate miltary objective to assassinate him.

[0rganism]

49. And who decided that legitimacy?

Everyone is a "legitimate military target" these days, apparently. Whom do you want deciding whether YOU are a legitimate military target?

What if, rather than being arrested on a battlefield, he is taken into custody by Interpol on a trip through India? Held by civilian authority? What then? Your argument is premised on the notion that UCMJ would somehow apply even then.

[benfranklin1776]

99. You need to check your history. Jackson would disagree with you immensely.

Why? Because Jackson was responsible for convincing Truman that the surviving Nazi's, the remnants of the most odious murderous regime in modern history needed to be tried in a full and fair judicial proceeding. He most assuredly did not approve of quick summary trials and executions which is what Churchill was advocating at the time.


President Truman selected U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Robert H. Jackson to represent the U.S. in any post-war proceeding, and Jackson
squarely presented the options to the president:

"We could execute or otherwise punish them without a hearing. But undiscriminating
executions or punishments without definite findings of guilt, fairly arrived at, would . . . not set
easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride." For
Jackson, the "only" appropriate "course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused
after a hearing as dispassionate as the times and horrors we deal with will permit, and upon
a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear."

* * * *
"Unless we write the record of this movement with clarity and precision, we cannot blame the
future if in days of peace it finds incredible accusatory generalities uttered during the war.
We must establish incredible events by credible evidence."

* * * *
"The president of the United States has no power to convict anyone. He can only accuse. He
cannot arrest in most cases without judicial authority. Therefore, the accusation made
carries no weight in an American trial whatsoever. These declarations are an accusation and
not a conviction. That requires a judicial finding. Now we could not be parties to setting up a
formal judicial body to ratify a political decision to convict. Then judges will have to inquire
into the evidence and give an independent decision."

* * * *

The {Nuremberg} defendants enjoyed the full measure of due process:

- an open, public trial;

- burden of proof on the prosecution to establish evidence of specified crimes;

- evidence that could be scrutinized by the court and by history;

- the right to counsel, to confront accusers and to answer charges.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/hutchinson_wartribunals.html

Jackson prevailed on Truman and Truman on the allies. The Nuremberg tribunals came into being and they were most assuredly not a kangaroo court. Of the 199 tried 36 were given the death penalty, 125 were given prison sentences but 38 were acquitted. Had these been summary pirate style trials those 38 would have been executed. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/stattable_nuremberg.htm

I agree with Mr. Justice Jackson in that we need not and should not discard our committment to due process. By adhering to the rule of law I can think of no better way to demonstrate for the world the enduring power of our principles even in time of crisis. Following the Nuremberg precedent, a special international tribunal could be convened to try Bin Laden for his alleged crimes against humanity. The tribunal could be comprised of representatives of every country in which Al Quaeda has staged a terrorist attack or has lost citizens to such an attack. It should be conducted according to the aforementioned rules of the Nuremberg tribunal in which the accused was provided with counsel and the opportunity to cross examine. Even the Nazi saboteurs caught on US soil during the war were afforded a trial via military tribunal under similar rules. If convicted, the tribunal can then fix the appropriate punishment as it did at Nuremberg.

As for Jackson's famous utterance in the case of Terminello v. US that the constitutional Bill of Rights should not be "converted to a suicide pact," he meant it only as a caution that the constitution does not protect mob rule and violence which Terminello, a right wing fascist sympathizer was exhorting. Jackson made clear that he was in no way advocating the willy nilly suppression of constitutional rights, merely warning that those rights do not encompass inciting anarchic violence by the speakers of unpopular ideas, which in his view would in the long run destroy the order which protects the exercise of constitutional liberties. Jackson said in Terminello:

"But I would not be understood as suggesting that the United States can or should meet this dilemma by suppression of free,
open and public speaking on the part of any group or ideology. Suppression has never been a successful permanent policy;
any surface serenity that it creates is a false security, while conspiratorial forces go underground. My confidence in American
institutions and in the sound sense of the American people is such that if with a stroke of the pen I could silence every fascist
and communist speaker, I would not do it. For I agree with Woodrow Wilson, who said:

'I have always been among those who b lieved that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if
a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. It cannot be so easily
discovered if you allow him to remain silent and look wise, but if you let him speak, the secret is out and the world
knows that he is a fool. So it is by the exposure of folly that it is defeated; not by the seclusion of folly, and in this free
air of free speech men get into that sort of communication with one another which constitutes the basis of all common
achievement.' Address at the Institute of France, Paris, May 10, 1919. 2 Selected Literary and Political Papers and
Addresses of Woodrow Wilson (1926) 333."

Terminello, 337 U.S. 36.

Jackson therefore did not believe in cavalierly smashing the constitution for some ephemeral concept of security.

[MIMStigator]

44. Nominee who says bin laden might be innocent = L-O-S-E-R

Dean can't even find a way to avoid saying bin laden might be INNOCENT?

[0rganism]

52. What is our evidence that he's guilty?

If it's so convincing, the lynch-minded should have no problem with putting Usama bin Laden on trial; it'd be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. None Of That Even Matters, Does It?

It really doesn't matter if he's guilty, to refute the argument of summary judgment.

If we begin acting in a matter that exceeds the traditions of jurisprudence that go back to 13th century England, and were the basis of this country's founding, we are diminished.


This would be true whether he's guilty or not. If he's guilty, and he probably is, then the punishment would follow per our normal procedures of civilized and systematic justice.

A summary execution of a person, not yet tried and convicted in open court of a crime against humanity, makes us as bad as the slime who flew those planes into buildings full of innocent people.

So, it doesn't matter whether there is unassailable proof or not. We just shouldn't go outside our normal operations of justice, or the terrorists end up being right.
The Professor

[0rganism]

65. Apparently, such talk is tantamount to treason these days

Guilt or innocence is now so passe'
Just pull out the gun and blow 'em away


I mean, a candidate can't even talk about following judicial traditions without getting slammed as unelectable. We gotta have us a lynching, or else it's no fun.

[ProfessorGAC]

85. Oh. Silly Me!

Thanks for the reminder. Don't know where my mind is at. I must be thinking of the good old days, when the Constitution still meant something.
The Professor

[0rganism]

89. I, too, miss the Old Republic

But you gotta admit, living in a dictatorship is much more exciting.

[Sterling]

140. Hey Bill Clinton said so

Now back to the football game with you. And you will say double plus good.

[Cocoa]

120. a brave answer from Dean

it shouldn't sound as radical as it does, but in fact it's as obviously true as what he said about Saddam's capture not making us safer.

He got attacked for that, but on the rare occasion that an attacker was asked to defend his attacks, Joe Lieberman couldn't do it on Hardball. Tweety actually pressed Joe, and Joe couldn't make sense out of his objection to what Dean said, and the audience was totally unconvinced by his nonsense.

I wonder if Dean will be attacked for stating an obvious truth about the way we do justice, something school children learn, or at least did when I was one.

[mouse7]

121. What if Islamic Jihad, not Al-Queda, did it?

There is almost as much evidence suggesting other terrorist groups as there is Al-Queda.

It's not like Bin Laden would walk or something...we do know Bin Laden did the Cole Bombing, the Embassy bombings in Africa, etc.

We need a complete hearing and trial.

[creeksneakers2]

47. I'm Switching

to Wesley Clark. Dean doesn't seem to care about how his statements will be misunderstood by the public.

[janx]

48. Bush is toast.

Get over it.

[OrAnarch]

58. Your new to the board

And most likely a disruptor posing as a Dean supporter who just switched to Clark, as to bolster support for others to do the same.


Take a deap breath if not, read the quote word for word, and tell me what, if anything, you disagree with about the statement by Dean. Secondly, tell me if youve read the consitution. Thanks.

[scintlgst]

67. Relax

[wryter2000]

70. I'll tell you one thing

This person has nothing to do with Dean or the Dean campaign. In fact, she sounds like she's trying to sabotage his support here. Probably scared he can beat her candidate...George W. Bush.

[janx]

74. That's about the size of it, yes. Expect more of this. It'll only

get worse.

[creeksneakers2]

96. Reply

I am not a room disrupter or a freeper. I think a few people have been quick to judge here. I've served the Democratic party as a committeeman for four terms. The star by my screen names indicates I've made a contribution to this forum.

I understand that freepers come here, and that the level of civility has dropped off somewhat because of the primaries.

I read the article. The problem I have is not with the concept of a trial for Bin Laden. The problem I have is with Dean's control of his language. He could have just said Bin Laden should get a trial that is acceptable internationally. Dean didn't have to add anything about a presumption of innocence. A fair trial presumes innocence. Most people are going to interpret Dean's remarks to mean he doesn't think Osama is guilty. One remark like this can lose an election.

Bill Clinton put out an executive order for Bin Laden to be assassinated. I trust Bill Clinton. I don't believe Clinton would have given the order without a great deal of evidence.

Also, I have read the U.S. constitution and studied constitutional law for two semesters in college. I don't know anything about the due process rights of foreigners on foreign soil. Other war criminals were tried under international authority. I suspect that turning over war criminals to international tribunals is constitutional.

I'm switching my vote to Wesley Clark because I think he has a better chance of beating Bush. I was for Dean, but Dean has made too many mistakes and this one pushed me over the edge. I have nothing to do with Clark supporters.

[mouse7]

124. STALIN had LOTS of trial with no presumption of innocence

Preesumtion of innocent in the process is every but as important as the trial itself. Trials without a presumption of justice are called SHOW TRIALS.

[trapper914]

61. If they don't read his statements...

...they won't understand them. This is not inflammatory at all, although I'm sure the right wing will try to make it so.

[wryter2000]

62. Switch if you want

That's your right or obligation if one candidate doesn't suit you.

Despite all the fun we've had with the Neanderthal on this thread (apologies to any real Neanderthals here), we are missing one point. Al Qaeda has attacked and killed non-Americans. How about all the Aussies who were killed in that night club? How about the people in Kenya? It's American arrogance, yet again, to assume that he's ours and ours alone to sentence.

[scintlgst]

68. Me too.

[janx]

77. Not a bad idea since Chimpy is toast.

The economy is still in the toilet, we're stuck in a quagmire, and nobody will vote for him next time around.

Get used to it.

[MacCovern]

149. 2004 election results: Toast 56%, Dean 42%

Janx, I like your optimism, but it has nothing to do with reality, and if Dean keeps making more off the cuff statements he will be toast before the first primary!

[Bandit]

81. LOL

We believe you ~ honest.

[way2tacky]

76. I still like Dean

I really like Lieberman but I don't think he can beat Bush. So Dean it is.

[janx]

93. That's good. Many libertarians like Dean.

It's a phenomenon.

[mouse7]

126. I guess it's Dean's states rights positions

He's got a few major issues effected by strong States Rights views.

[Cocoa]

123. Dean is being a leader

what he said is a basic fact of civilized justice, only a coward would be intimidated by freeper style ignorance. Dean is saying what a lot of people are afraid to say.

I'm beginning to believe him about whether he would have voted for the Iraq war. He's saying some things that a political coward would NOT say.

i.e. I'm beginning to like Dean a LOT.

[xchrom]

82. since bush knew and let 9-11 happen

we don't need much of a trial for him either.
would military justice for bush make the wanna be lyncher happy?

[JailForBush]

86. Amen! N/T

[JailForBush]

84. If Osama bin Laden should be summarily executed (perhaps based

largely on George Bush's lies), then what punishment should be accorded George W. Bush, who has done far more to hurt America and other nations than Osama bin Laden has and is, in my opinion, a far more disgusting person than Osama bin Laden?

Keep in mind, also, that millions of people around the world worship bin Laden as a hero. Relatively few would shed tears over Saddam Hussein, but executing Osama would create a martyr more powerful than the Pentagon can handle.

[mot78]

94. Damnit!

This quote will be used out of context over and over again next year by *. Someone tell the Dean campaign about this article.

[TheStateChief]

95. I'm afraid this wasn't a good move for Dean...

I understand what he's trying to say, but he has again gone about it the wrong way. Expect to see lots of talk this weekend about how Dean isn't sure if Osama is guilty or not. And to those who have posted that he MAY be guilty or that they need evidence to prove such guilt I would refer you to the video tape they took from Afghanistan that shows Osama and his crew talking about the day and their knowledge of the attacks before they occured. In ANY court of law that would be damning evidence no matter what the crime - you have to admit. I'm afraid that any Democratic candidate that doesn't embrace the death penalty for this guy will be painted as weak on terror by Bush, Rover and the Media and for anyone doubting this just wait until the Sunday morning programs this weekend. I'm not saying Dean has to turn his back on his beliefs, but I just don't see him winning over people who may be concerned about his foreign policy experience and his commitment to take out terrorist killers when he can't form decisive opinions about the guilt of the terrorist ringleader.

Pablo Escobar may not have had a trial to determine his guilt, and he may not have been moving the drugs himself, but I don't think any politician could have been elected on the platform of his possibly being innocent or as an opponent to how he went out. No matter where you stand on what Dean said, I'm afraid the same holds true for most of America when it comes to Osama bin Laden.

[mouse7]

127. Ahhh... the "Fat Osama" tape rears it's ugly head again

Unfortunately, absolutely NOBODY outside the borders of the US or Tony Blair's office thinks that tape is anything but fabricated evidence.

On that tape, Osama was far heavier, the gray in his beard had a completely different pattern, he spoke in ways Osama has never spoken, etc.

[NashVegas]

100. The Crisco Solution

Give Osama a fair trial, and if by chance he is found not guilty, we take him out back at dawn.

[robbedvoter]

101. Technically correct, but communication problems; compare the two w Tweety:

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we
catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's
very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for
trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of
justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens
in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs
to be tried in international court.
MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be
held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They
don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue. I think that's a separate issues.
MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not
execute people at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to
look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the
long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we
handle the war on terror from here on out.
MATTHEWS: But doesnâ?^TMt life in Holland beat life in a cave?
CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable.
..************************************************************************************.....- note it's all about ME:............................................................................................
MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?
DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...
MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would
you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or
would you let The Hague do it?
DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is
brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.
MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...
DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International
Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and
so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to
find either one of them.

[Bandit]

102. Apparently Tweety wants blood

I agree completely with Gen Clark. The Hague would be the place to try any international criminal. If they don't support the death penalty so much the better. At least we will know it is a "fair trial" I can't say the same thing if it were to be in the USA under Bush*. Bush* will fight that tooth and nail though because then the US would actually have to produce some real evidence. They couldn't hide behind "National Security"

[TheStateChief]

103. Clark went into brainlock during that interview

when Matthews informed him that he would be immune from the death penalty if tried in the Hague. I like Clark a lot, but he seems to try too hard to NOT say the wrong thing. After he was told that Osama wouldn't face death at the Hague there was a several second pause and you could almost see the General trying to work out all the possible outcomes of his answer, like someone playing chess. That's a con, in my book, for Clark but I have no doubt that this remark will be used by Rover should Dean win the nomination.

[0rganism]

107. Clark's answer is excellent, tho

Seems to me, he takes into account the important prospect of looking beyond short-term visceral satisfaction to the improvement of American security and international image. It's no surprise that he'd think twice about how to say it to a bloodthirsty Tweety.

[0rganism]

104. Clark is far more coherent on this issue

I like Clark more and more, the more I see and hear him. He really has his shit together. I'm about this close (--) to volunteering for his campaign -- and I'm a registered Green.

[robbedvoter]

109. It struck me as I read how HD is talking about HD: "I'd be happy" suits me

"doesn't make a lot of difference to me". Clark mentions the victims - which tweety forgets are from 80 countrues, the fact that it's a crime against humanity, the beneficial role of a trial on the international community, national security...
So, no, HD didn't say anything incorrect today - but his way of blurtting stuff lends itself to overreaction. Those holes in the resumee again.

[babzilla]

106. old-fashioneds on me

all around.



but before you take a sip, you must agree that all are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Come on, the maraschino cherry alone should be enough to convince you. That and the little constitution thing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

108. Let's have a "fair" trial and THEN hang him.

Unless YOU are the accused , of course.

[flaminbats]

111. Could not find the link for "Dean not ready to sentence Bin Liden!"

Is Dean now a judge? Where will Bin Liden be sentenced? :shrug:

[peterh]

115. There appears to be a minor backtrack on the original title…

New title:
Dean: It's Premature to Convict Bin Laden
:shrug:

[genius]

112. That's a switch from his treatment of criminal defendants in Vermont

IN Vermont, he cut funds for public defenders and pushed to expedite convictions because of his belief that most people in the ciminal justice system were guilty and that a trial was just a formal waste of time and money.

If he's changed his position on criminal justice, I'm impressed. But how do I know it's real? His record speaks differently.

Someone convince me that he will be better in the White House than as governor of Vermont. I find it hard to believe that the bad stuff he did in Vermont was just a pretext to convince the right wing that he was their guy while secretly planning to stick it to the Republicans after gaining the White House. Maybe it's us who he's trying to fool.

[Cocoa]

125. his statement is true

and he's the only one that has had the courage to say this obvious truth.

Means more than your unsubstantiated claims about his beliefs about the justice system.

I'm not going to bother asking you for a link, because you never provide one and your attacks never have anything to do with the truth.

edit to remove sexist metaphor

[UofIDem]

129. technically

I've been lurking on this board for a while and I feel I just have to say something about this topic. While I don't want to get into a philosophical argument about the equity of our system the fact of the matter is that people such as Osama bin Laden and other non-citizens are not (by the rule of law) afforded constitutional protections such as right to council, public trial, etc... as they are not American citizens. Certainly based on that, the presumption of innocence is, as a matter of procedure, no guarantee even were he to find himself in front of some jury-like panel of Americans (civilians or military).

As to whether he must be turned over to the International Court in the Hague, my understanding of it, again procedurally, is that he does not. Given that the United States is not operating under the auspices of an international mandate from the UN, Osama bin Laden is not considered an international war criminal and therefore, the Hague has no real claim to him. That there is a legitimacy argument to be made by sending him does not dispel the fact that there is no requirement for him to be sent there.

Now, as this is my first post, I know some of you can be zealous with the alert button, however, please understand that I am posting my understanding of the procedural matters involved in assigning jurisdiction between the courts, and my understanding is that the Hague has no technical jurisdiciton and bin Laden is not afforded the rights of an American citizen, thus the presumption of innocence and right to trial/council does not apply to him (Alternatively I do think that the situations of Jose Padilla and JWL were handled in an unforgiveable manner, but OBL is not an American Citizen). I certainly don't believe that if I am wrong and an international mandate does in fact dictate that bin Laden should be tried in the Hague that Bush would turn him over, but I believe that this is all for naught because I belive him to be either dead, or willing to kill himself before the question of jurisdiction is even raised.

[Sterling]

142. You should lurk longer

"While I don't want to get into a philosophical argument about the equity of our system the fact of the matter is that people such as Osama bin Laden and other non-citizens are not (by the rule of law) afforded constitutional protections such as right to council, public trial, etc... as they are not American citizens"


Only under Bush's doctrine of declaring people enemy combatants does your statement hold true. That doctrine is almost universally rejected and cannont exists under our current constitution. Unfortunatley no one is really willing to take Bush to task on this issue right now. I am glad Dean has the guts to make the case that justice and rule of law is not dead post 9-11.

I submit that based on this post your understanding of legal matters is flawed.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robbedvoter]

134. APOLOGY: "Same manner president Bush is recommending for SH"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/index.html
Later, Dean released a statement clarifying, "I share the outrage of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has admitted that he is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans as well as scores of men, women and children around the world. This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.

"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."

So, I guess all them theories about bavely defending fair trial are shot down by HD himself. You guys put up a fair fight. Not your fault. As someone said: never go on a limb....

[robbedvoter]

135. Recap: flip, flop and recant (what he said)

flip
that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty
flop
we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dean-bin-Laden.html
Recant - what he said
This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.
"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/index.html

[robbedvoter]

138. Also, when he says OBL=SH, does this mean OBL should be tried in Iraq?

In his zeal to agree with W, does HD forget that Saddam was a head of state while OBL is a stateless terrorist to whom different laws may aply?

[JNelson6563]

141. Imagine, Rule of Law

What an interesting concept.

Julie

[robbedvoter]

144. Yeap. But HD abandoned it, thinks now is a courtesy, not law

Dean's Osama oops
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/149573p-131822c.html

It took the former Vermont governor a few hours after the story got picked up on the Internet and on wire services to realize that even if the American way is "innocent until proven guilty," it might not be a courtesy extended the terror mastermind.
Dean later told The Associated Press, "As an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves."

[robbedvoter]

143. AP pulled this storry off print. HD sure has the power!

Only a litle local paper went with it

Dean's Osama oops
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/149573p-131822c.html
By JOHN A. OSWALD
DAILY NEWS DEPUTY NATIONAL EDITOR

[jamesinca]

145. They pulled it because it is a waste of paper and money.

Maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe standing up for the constitution is not something they want to put into the mainstream press? That would go against Bush. If you do not have a copy of the constitution handy, check the trash can outside of John Ashcrofts office, there is one in there.

[robbedvoter]

147. Right! Let's go back to W's vacation and Michael Jacson's deposition.

Enough with OBL talk - we can do those next fall, in NYC, when RNC descends to ground Zero. Why bother primary voters with that info?
I take it you always trusted AP judgement before, non?
be careful what you whish

[stickdog]

146. No way, bleeding heart!

Death is too good for Emmanuel Goldstein!

[robbedvoter]

148. I take it you pick earlier HD over later HD

Cuz the later HD said:
Dean later told The Associated Press, "As an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/149573p-131822c.html

[jamesinca]

150. Try reading the article

He is consistant in his view. It seems that some people are focusing on the words of the paper not on what the Gov. is saying. Stop giving him credit for something he did not say. Why are some people afraid to take the republicans on and point out how they are not following the Constitution of the greatest country on earth?

By JOHN A. OSWALD
DAILY NEWS DEPUTY NATIONAL EDITOR

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean quickly clarified comments yesterday that he won't judge Osama Bin Laden without a trial.

( This is a quote from him, not some BS comeing from the paper)
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean told New Hampshire's Concord Monitor.

(This is another quote from him, not some BS coming from the paper)
"I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials," he said.

(This is f---ed BS coming from the paper, not Gov. Dean, that you should not focus on)
It took the former Vermont governor a few hours after the story got picked up on the Internet and on wire services to realize that even if the American way is---(this part is from Gov. Dean)---"innocent until proven guilty,"---(This is the f---ed up BS coming from the reporter that is not to be focused on)---it might not be a courtesy extended the terror mastermind.

[robbedvoter]

151. So, innocent until proven guilty is a courtesy now?

I didn't even want to use that paragraph

It took the former Vermont governor a few hours after the story got picked up on the Internet and on wire services to realize that even if the American way is "innocent until proven guilty," it might not be a courtesy extended the terror mastermind.

- I was not sure if these were his exact words but to me this is the most damning statement. Either it's the law, or it's a courtesy. Since it's not in quotation marks, I'll give HD a pass on this one.
Either way, this is a direct quote:

Dean later told The Associated Press, "As an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves."

In it, he both prejudges the trial AND cancels the "innocent until proven guilty" thingy.

[jamesinca]

152. Continue to read the statements.

He also says that he is obligated to have a trial by jury. As much as Dean despises the image, the thought of what bin-Laden has supposedly done and would like him executed for it, he is still entitled to a trial by jury. You are reading the FOX cable news version. Adolf Hitler should have been executed, but he would have still been required to have a fair trial. The same with the Unibomber, Timothy McVie, John Lee Malvo, etc.. Regardless of our opinions, the law must still be followed. That is what Howard Dean is saying. He does not like the person that bin-Laden has been made out to be, but he still thinks he is entitled to a trial by jury. Why is that so difficult to grasp. Read what he is saying, not what the writer is injecting. How many times have people gone on rants about the media twisting somebodys words. Listen to what he is saying, not what somebody else projects his words to mean. Actually maybe you can post on his web site and get him to answer it for you.

[robbedvoter]

153. Dunno about Faux. Used AP, CNN, Daily news - and parsed spin from

his actual words. That's why I don't insist on "courtesy" - because it doesn't seem a direct quote. Twist it as you may, he made contradictory statements.