Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It doesn't bother me that Osama didn't get a trial....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:43 PM
Original message
It doesn't bother me that Osama didn't get a trial....
Hindsight is 20/20. We weren't there so how can we make an informed decision that it was wrong not to capture and try Bin Laden?

Much to do has been made of the fact that Osama was unarmed. But what those arguing for a trial most seem to ignore is that there were guns (including an AK47) within just a few feet of Osama. Others in the compound were and had been shooting at the Seals. For 40 minutes they had been having a firefight with others in the compound.It was dark and they were going after the MOST WANTED Terrorist in the world who has bragged countless times on video and audio tapes that he was responsible for killing thousands of Americans and other westerners. This man was considered to be the most dangerous person in the world.

I have also heard much criticism that Osama was shot in front of his teenage daughter. I'm not a heartless person, but it seems to me that if you are a good father, you would want to protect your children at all costs....so why on earth would the most wanted person in the world, who had to know it was a very good possibility that those hunting you would one day find you........why, why, why would you surround yourself with women and children? Particularily members of your own family who one would think you would want to protect?

Osama was the leader of a Worldwide Terrorist Army that we have been at war with for 10 years. In the heat of battle, I don't expect our soldiers to stop and read our enemy their rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vicar In A Tutu Donating Member (298 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think he'd already pleaded guilty on numerous occasions.
With that in mind, only sentencing was required and the sentence most certainly fit the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well it does bother me.Diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. We could have tried Bin Laden for the 1998 embassy bombings, but not 9/11
Edited on Fri May-06-11 05:51 PM by Cali_Democrat
The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. That's why Bin Laden's FBI poster has no mention of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. No evidence exists connecting him to the hijackers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Evidence, schmevidence!
"Everybody" knows he was guilty, so that's the end of it. And when "everybody" knows something, there's just no point in belaboring things, is there? Like in 2004, when Boston trailed New York three games to none in the American League Championship series. It was hardly worth going through the motions because "everybody" said that the Yankees had that series all wrapped up and were headed to the World Series and another inexorable march to yet another World Championship.

Say, how did that all come out, anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. They followed orders.
Challenge not their judgment, but their orders. They do what we train them to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. It bothers me that WE didn't get a trial.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. THAT should be a subject line of it's own OP. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. Can you imagine the uproar over that trial
After the outrage that they were going to try some of the getmo prisoners in New York. How could anyone expect to find a place to try such a high profile terrorist?


No city state or country would want to take the trial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Not only that........
Does anyone actually think they could really find an impartial jury any where on earth regarding this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I can, because it happened before. The trial of the blind Sheik Rahman
who attempted to topple the WTC in 1993 was held in NYC. This nonsense that we 'can't hold trials anymore because can you imagine how upset a bunch of terrorists might be, is just sad. Our country and our judicial system is now being dictated by a small bunch of radical extremists who have little influence anywhere in the world, except here, the 'home of the brave'!

There were seven years of terrorist trials after the 1993 bombings. Any terrorist who might have entertained the idea of disrupting those trials, had to forget about it, because we CAN hold trials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. Your disdain for the Rule of Law is duly noted
the Police State thanks you for your support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. soooo....
You can say with certainty that Osama was not going for the AK-47 assault rifle or the Makarov semi-automatic pistol that were just a foot or two away from him? You were there then and know for sure that the Navy Seals did not fear for their own safety? I don't disdain the Rule of Law........I just suspect that the Law of War and what was happening in that compound may somewhat muddy the waters as to whether or not the Rule of Law even came into play.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Here's my problem with all this:
Up until Bush declared a faux 'war' on terror, terrorism was treats as a criminal offense. Now, however, the military is engaged in an endless non-declared, quasi 'war' against a concept. So, yeah, I'm against using the military to chase 'terrorists' endlessly. There was a reason it was treated as a criminal issue, and removing that important barrier with it's checks and balances opened a Pandora's Box that will not easily close. It's the same reason I've always been opposed to quasi 'wars' of abstraction (E.g. 'terror' and 'drugs') because they use these glorified marketing campaigns to destroy the Constitution, Bill of Rights and our Civil Liberties, to boot. So when you cheer for stuff like this, you're supporting the belief in Pax Americana and Endless War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Excellent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC