Bin Laden is dead!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NWPilgrim

Since when does a FOREIGN TERRORIST deserve protection under US criminal law? Maybe in the eyes of liberal progressives, but common sense says that is ridiculous. A FOREIGN TERRORIST is someone waging war against our country, thus a combatant. Osama bin Laden was a FOREIGN TERRORIST waging war on the USA.

I am neither a liberal nor a progressive, but I have to disagree with you and Mike on principle. Maybe it's because my great-grandfather was a professor of international law. There are laws that pertain to the conduct of wars, and they differentiate between how nations deal with captured soldiers and how they deal with civilians. Osama bin Laden was not a nation, and al Queda is not a nation. OBL was most certainly a terrorist, but he was a civilian. He represented no nation, no country, no state. Had he been captured, there is simply no legally viable pretext under which he could have been subjected to a military trial.

And I feel exactly the same way about Guantanamo Bay. We've been holding people there for years, with no (legal) system for even deciding if we have a right to hold them. We *SAY* they're all dangerous terrorists, but who actually knows? Some of them weren't even fighting against anyone when they were picked up in sweeps. What's the pretext for claiming they should be subject to military justice rather than the civil court system?

The reality is, the only reason our gummint wants to keep them out of civilian court is that the gummint doesn't want to allow any witnesses to the trials.

The thing about laws is, they cut both ways. When we ignore or spurn international law, we reduce ourselves to the level of lesser countries. IMHO it's very sad if the only way the United States can prevail is to stoop to the level of third world banana republics.

[Silver Bullet]

Do you know how you can be sure that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell actually DID think that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's?

And it wasn’t just them: Billy Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and others all declared in the late 1990s that Saddam had WMDs.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

What I find despicable is that none of them (to my knowledge) spoke up about this when President Bush was getting raked over the coals by the press for “lying” about WMDs.

Naturally our president and the rest of the politicians are taking credit. Realistically great job CIA, military commanders and especially the SEALS as the ones who actually put their lives on the line!

I observed a long time ago that when Republicans are in office and things go wrong with an operation, the media blames Republican officials. When Democrats are in office and things go wrong with an operation, the Democrats blame the military (or police). This is the flip side: when Democrats are in office and things go right with an operation, the Democrats and media give credit to the politicians.

[SPEMack618]

According to my understanding of the Constitution, it only appiles to Citizens of the United States of America.

[lawnboy]

I am neither a liberal nor a progressive, but I have to disagree with you and Mike on principle. Maybe it's because my great-grandfather was a professor of international law. There are laws that pertain to the conduct of wars, and they differentiate between how nations deal with captured soldiers and how they deal with civilians. Osama bin Laden was not a nation, and al Queda is not a nation. OBL was most certainly a terrorist, but he was a civilian. He represented no nation, no country, no state. Had he been captured, there is simply no legally viable pretext under which he could have been subjected to a military trial.

And I feel exactly the same way about Guantanamo Bay. We've been holding people there for years, with no (legal) system for even deciding if we have a right to hold them. We *SAY* they're all dangerous terrorists, but who actually knows? Some of them weren't even fighting against anyone when they were picked up in sweeps. What's the pretext for claiming they should be subject to military justice rather than the civil court system?

The reality is, the only reason our gummint wants to keep them out of civilian court is that the gummint doesn't want to allow any witnesses to the trials.

The thing about laws is, they cut both ways. When we ignore or spurn international law, we reduce ourselves to the level of lesser countries. IMHO it's very sad if the only way the United States can prevail is to stoop to the level of third world banana republics

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv but I have the opposite take on this. Because the Gitmo detainees and OBL inhabit a legal grey area there is no agreed upon law that applies to them. As we all know, law can only inhibit. It does not "legalize". Anything not expressly prohibited by law is by definition legal. International law (as silly as it is) governs nations. The law of war governs armed forces of nations. OBL and the Gitmo detainees are illegal combatants under US interpretation. The US is free to treat them however it likes given that no law protects them (and no soverign entity has the power to protect them; a status that they brought upon themselves by being illegal combatants in the first place.) As far as I'm concerned Gitmo detainees can be held until the duly constituted authorities of the United States of America decide to let them go. Or forever, whichever comes first.

Sadaam Hussein regularly appeared in a military uniform and was the acknowledged head of a nation. Because of this status he deserved, and got, very different treatment when he was captured. OBL fought, which made him not only the leader by his own admission of an illegal gang that wore the uniform of no nation, but also a combatant (and an illegal one to boot).

[carguychris]

According to my understanding of the Constitution, it only appiles to Citizens of the United States of America.

This is a commonly-held misconception. The COTUS addresses citizens in some sections and persons or the people in other sections.

You'll notice that the latter category prevails in the Bill of Rights.

[SPEMack618]

True, but then you have both the 14th and 26th amendments which further devine citizenship.

[Mal H]

Sorry, but as with all things, this one has to end. We made the decision to let this otherwise off-topic thread run for a day so our members could rejoice, debate the decision and any of its outcomes, or even say it was a bad decision for the US. All calmly stated viewpoints were welcome.

Some weren't so calm or even clean in their postings and those were deleted, but in general it stayed fairly well on the tracks. The topic even led to a history debate of sorts.

At any rate, it's time to close the TFL door on this topic. For those who missed the opportunity here, I'm sure there are other forums available in netland to voice their opinions on the subject for months and years to come.