My God man

[worldgonekrazy]

Have we gone crazy?

Seriously?

Howard Dean comes out and says that Osama ought to get a trial and ought not to be assumed to be guilty. This sounds reasonable to me as it is only enshrined in our Constitution and forms the basis of our criminal justice system.

But no. You would think from the way people are reacting that Dean suggested we just forget the whole thing and let Osama go on his merry way. Seriously, these people are frothing at the mouth, essentially saying that the United States ought to just execute OBL no questions asked.

Does this bother anyone? Does it seem barbaric to anyone? Does anyone else get the feeling that we are regressing hundreds of years in terms of justice?

Take a look at the statement Gephardt released. This guy is a Democrat, he is supposed to be one of the good guys. So what does he do? He comes out with a statement saying that Osama ought to be tried and executed (but isn't innocence presumed???). You can practically picture him pulling the switch.

I am disgusted. I don't know what to say. This is seriously disturbing to me. Seriously.

[wanderingbear]

1. It isnt WE..Its the Conservitive Right..

And some old line democrats that still think they can still suck up to the right and get away with it.Put the blaim where it belongs.

[worldgonekrazy]

3. I don't know about that anymore

Just listening to people respond to the statement...its like they are willing to toss "innocent until proven guilty" right out the fucking window, along with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. It is really scary.

And its only the conservative right? What about the other Democratic candidates' statements? They seem to think bin Laden ought to be lynched 19th century style.

[wanderingbear]

8. Like I said Old Line Dems who will likely be replaced next election.

[kentuck]

Yes.

Let's just pretend we believe in that old axiom, "innocent until proven guilty". We don't really have to practice it.

But there were some reports immediately after 9/11 that Atta and his cell were operating without the knowledge of Osama bin Laden, although he was informed after the fact. So those would be some good facts to bring out in a trial rather than assuming guilty until proven innocent. They have already won, it seems.

[worldgonekrazy]

5. What proof is there bin Laden was involved?

Or even Al-Qaeda at all?

I know this isn't a popular point, but it is a valid one none the less. As far as I know the Administration has produced just about no solid evidence against Al-Qaeda. Could bin Ladin actually be innocent (of this particular crime)?

Really, it is beside the point. Either way, he ought to get a trial. We still believe in human rights, don't we?

[Hogarth]

2. You won't get an argument from me.

n/t

[Selwynn]

4. Dean is right, AND at the same time, it was dumb thing to say.

[worldgonekrazy]

7. Yeah, but Dean can get away with these things

He's a smart politician. He says it and it stirs up controversy, but a lot of people out there think to themselves "gee, maybe this guy is on to something."

[karlschneider]

11. Defending the Constitution is dumb? I don't get your "point"...

:eyes:
Or are you suggesting it's politically dangerous for election reasons, and you think it's better to go along with the wingnuts?

[Droopy]

12. Yeah that's probably not going to be healthy for the campaign.

Dean is just too honest sometimes. It's a quality I like in a person, but considering the whole world's listening he should definitely learn the art of Ari (answering while not really giving any information) when answering some questions.

[worldgonekrazy]

14. I disagree

I think Dean's is smart enough to pull it off. A lot of people are fed up with the "say something without really saying anything at all" way of politics.

[wryter2000]

6. 100% in agreement

The question is whether we'll follow the rule of law or act like terrorists ourselves. Whichever law applies (assuming we find him) may or may not include a presumption of innocence. But we must follow the rule of law or we're no better than Osama.

However, I don't think we need to find ways to argue Osama's innocence. Probably he isn't innocent. It is a tactical error to appear to be standing up for the monster. (Remember the videotape of him sitting with his henchmen after the first plane hit and telling them with a grin on his face, "Wait and see what happens next"?)

[worldgonekrazy]

10. I just assumed it was a non-issue

I guess I just thought it was a given that Osama ought to get a free trial. I can't believe that premise is being brought into question AT ALL. I don't even care if we had damning evidence against him (we don't), he should still be treated according to the rule of law.

[quaker bill]

9. I could not agree more.

Our tossing out the constitution and the rule of law is a portion of the damage terrorists intend.

If trial by jury and rule of law is sufficient for Jeffery Dahmer, it is sufficient to deal with OBL as well.

I have no doubt that if we get him, try him, and find him guilty, every one of the candidates, be they democratic or republican, would have no problem signing a death warrant for OBL.

[worldgonekrazy]

13. I suspect you are right

But it kind of disturbs me. I am against the death penalty and won't abandon that principle just because it becomes convenient to do so. You can't say "well I don't think the state should kill people, EXCEPT with this one really bad guy." Either you are against it or you are for it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Do most voters really support the constitution?

Show a copy of it, unlabelled, to random voters, regardless of party affiliation.

Ask them if they think any of that will help fight the "wawonterra"


;)

[Moderator]

16. Locking

Please review Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.