Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty? (America, mission)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

A lot of people are acting as if the court has done something novel or even radical by ruling that aliens may petition for writ of habeas corpus. It hasn't. Aliens have always had the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus along with all the other protections of the Constitution.

Cool. Thanks.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

As these various legal cases have worked their way through the courts over the last six years, the administration's case has been based mostly on (a) the claim that the president has the authority to do whatever the hell he pleases in time of war and (b) the claim US courts have no jurisdiction over Guantanamo because Cuba has ultimate jurisdiction over Guantanamo.

Seems an odd position to take, IMO, since the authority they're claiming has jurisdiction over GITMO is also of the opinion that GITMO itself is illegal, isn't it? Also, I'm fairly certain that they aren't generally enforcing Cuban law there (such as, for example, the prohibition on conducting transactions in US funds).

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

That all sounds good until we dropped bombs on tora bora where we thought he was hiding out. Wouldn't it be unlawful for our military to attempt to kill someone who is presumed innocent?

You're confusing two different ideas: protection and justice.

Here's an example that will hopefully make things clear (or make things even muddier): picture a cop (let's call him Steve) arresting a man (let's call him Leon) for murder. As a murder suspect, Leon is entitled to due process before being punished, including the presumption of innocence.

However, during the arrest, Leon pulls a gun and points it at Steve; Steve shoots and kills Leon. Was he right to do so? Did Steve deprive Leon of his due process?

I'd say that Steve was right to do what he did, and that Leon was not deprived of due process. Here's why: shooting Leon wasn't about the suspected murder, it was about the gun. Justice is about making people answer for past actions; protection is about dealing with present or imminent threats.

It sure seems to me like Osama bin Laden has quite a bit to answer for regarding his past actions. It also seems to me that he still represents a deadly threat to many innocent people. Due process applies for the first issue, but not for the second. Trying to kill bin Laden is about stopping a threat and a danger, not about summarily executing him for his crimes.

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Hi LittlePinky,

The problem is that it looks like the argument is being made that soldiers on foreign battlefields are innocent until proven guilty, which means our military couldn't engage them.

They don't get these rights when they are captured, the argument goes that they have always had these rights, which means they are off limits to our military.

No.

Killing a soldier on a battlefield isn't about punishing that soldier for something he did previously, it's about addressing the threat he represents in the here and now.

All people have the right to not be punished for crimes until they receive due process, but battlefield deaths are not punishments for crimes.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by LittlePinky82

So why aren't we in Saudi Arabia? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but yet Bush goes kissy-kissy with their leaders. For the record however who is "they?"

Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia did not attack us; Al Qaeda did. The current government of Saudi Arabia is Al Qaeda's prime enemy, so it would be idiocy to blame or attack them. To decide what to do in the uber-complicated Middle East, you have to know a lot about it; more than I do. Some believe that bin Laden chose Saudi Arabians for this assignment in the hopes of alienating the Saudi/American alliance.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by kai

Bin Laden has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

Wiki

as for declaring war how can you declare war on an organization that is so loosely connected across the world? that spans borders and nationalities has no government etc. its a terrorist organization.

Just do it. Like this: "We hereby declare war on Al Qaeda. It is our intent to destroy this organization or accept its unconditional surrender. We call upon the nations of the world to join with us in this intention." I realize that it's unprecedented, but then so was the attack. I believe that Congress would happily have passed legislation to this effect, and authorizing the President to use all instruments of war to carry it out.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as for POW status they do not fit The criteria, Alqaeda operatives are from all over and wear no recognized uniforms, represent no government or state etc, the Taliban are different but are not the armed forces of any recognized government. going bk to say WW2 wearing a uniform gave you a certain amount of protection ,caught without one and you were a spy and shot. I believe Iraqi army were POWs but insurgents are not

My point is that you have to pick one. Either way they have some rights. If they're not POWs, then they're criminal defendants. No one gets to just kidnap people off the street and torture them and imprison them indefinitely, least of all the government of the U.S. That is the intent of our Constitution.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by LittlePinky82

Where does the fact you have to declare war, according to the Constitution, fit into the equation?

Into what equation? Declare war to do what?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Just do it. Like this: We hereby declare war on Al Qaeda. It is our intent to destroy this organization or accept its unconditional surrender. We call upon the nations of the world to join with us in this intention. I realize that it's unprecedented, but then so was the attack. I believe that Congress would happily have passed legislation to this effect, and authorizing the President to use all instruments of war to carry it out.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My point is that you have to pick one. Either way they have some rights. If they're not POWs, then they're criminal defendants. No one gets to just kidnap people off the street and torture them and imprison them indefinitely, least of all the government of the U.S. That is the intent of our Constitution.

cant really argue with you,

[Neo-Logic]

Also, the reason we are declaring "war on terror" - a non state, is that we knew we could not declare war as we would violate the terms of the Geneva Convention if we did. By declaring official war, we would have POW"s instead of our now dubbed "Detainees" and "enemy combatants." These are new ******** words we made up to circumvent the Geneva Convention's stipulation that all POW's must receive basic judicial rights deeded crucial by civilized society.

I'm glad Supreme Court finally enabled Habeaus Corpus rights for even these detainees of conflict. But Bin Laden will still die - his guilt is already self-confessed. Trial would simply be for show.

[LittlePinky82]

Originally Posted by kai

Bin Laden has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

Wiki

as for declaring war how can you declare war on an organization that is so loosely connected across the world? that spans borders and nationalities has no government etc. its a terrorist organization.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


as for POW status they do not fit The criteria, Alqaeda operatives are from all over and wear no recognized uniforms, represent no government or state etc, the Taliban are different but are not the armed forces of any recognized government. going bk to say WW2 wearing a uniform gave you a certain amount of protection ,caught without one and you were a spy and shot. I believe Iraqi army were POWs but insurgents are not

saying that once captured they should be treated with humanity. or we become what it is we are fighting.

And most insurgents are Iraqi citizen's fighting for their country against an occupied force. Any country would do the same thing.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

Also, the reason we are declaring "war on terror" - a non state, is that we knew we could not declare war as we would violate the terms of the Geneva Convention if we did. By declaring official war, we would have POW"s instead of our now dubbed "Detainees" and "enemy combatants." These are new ******** words we made up to circumvent the Geneva Convention's stipulation that all POW's must receive basic judicial rights deeded crucial by civilized society.

I'm glad Supreme Court finally enabled Habeaus Corpus rights for even these detainees of conflict. But Bin Laden will still die - his guilt is already self-confessed. Trial would simply be for show.

I also think that Bush is calling it a "war on terror" (what a stupid concept) because he wants to be a war president all the time, and for us to be in a constant eternal state of war so he can invoke his war powers, brush aside the constitution "in time of war," etc. Since a war on terror will never be over, that gives him what he wants.

[LittlePinky82]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

Yes - a trial would take place. But more than anything, it would be for formalities sake. Bin Laden will die.

He is "innocent until proven guilty" but in his case, he has already been proven guilty. He has released numerous tapes taking full responsibility for the attack of 9/11. He has in a sense signed a full confenssion to the world and has broken bail.

Now the hunt is on and once he is found, he will die - as he should.

Well you have to first prove those tapes are real and from him. And it shouldn't matter if he's already proven guilty. He still deserves a fair trial since that is the way of our republic. Juries will not be filled with people who are totally biased. Of course that's a hard task in itself.

[LittlePinky82]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia did not attack us; Al Qaeda did. The current government of Saudi Arabia is Al Qaeda's prime enemy, so it would be idiocy to blame or attack them. To decide what to do in the uber-complicated Middle East, you have to know a lot about it; more than I do. Some believe that bin Laden chose Saudi Arabians for this assignment in the hopes of alienating the Saudi/American alliance.

And fifteen of those nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. BinLadin is from Saudi Arabia. The royal there kicked him out because he was making trouble. My point is they were citizen's of that country but yet we didn't attack them because they are our friends (who are HORRIBLE on human rights by the way and still behead people in the public square!). "What to do about it"? How about we butt out of their issues for once? But of course we can't do that since we're an imperalist nation. And people still wonder why we got attacked? LOL. "Some believe"? Please. Show some evidence of it or it's nothing more than your opinion.