Why it is unlawful for the U.S. to persecute Benladdin.

[Archbob]

Now, I too, am pissed the world trade center bombing, but after analyzing the fact, I find it is actually against the law to take any action against Benladdin.

Why?

According to U.S. Law a person(s) is innocent until "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt." Now as far as I know, the U.S. does not have hard proof that Benladdin actually committed these crimes(at least none that they are willing to share). You cannot convict Benladdin on circumstantial proof like "He runs a terroist organization that hates the U.S.". You must have hard evidence that he did commit these atrocities. The U.S. cannot prove it, therefore by our own law, it is not constitutional to persecute him.

 

[JBearIt]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Now, I too, am pissed the world trade center bombing, but after analyzing the fact, I find it is actually against the law to take any action against Benladdin.

Why?

According to U.S. Law a person(s) is innocent until "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt." Now as far as I know, the U.S. does not have hard proof that Benladdin actually committed these crimes(at least none that they are willing to share). You cannot convict Benladdin on circumstantial proof like "He runs a terroist organization that hates the U.S.". You must have hard evidence that he did commit these atrocities. The U.S. cannot prove it, therefore by our own law, it is not constitutional to persecute him.

Your key statement is "as far as I know". Just because the government haven't presented you personally with the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't have ample proof. It certainly seems to have convinced an ample number of countries of the link between Bin Laden and the terrorist acts. Furthermore, the US has already convened grand juries to indict Bin Laden for previous terrorist incidents.

You also misstate your constitutionality argument. Plenty of alleged criminals are prosecuted (not persecution) and ultimately not convicted because the fact finder (usually a jury but sometimes a judge) finds that the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Under your theory, every attempted prosectution that does not result in a guilty verdict would be unconstitutional. That is most definitely not the case. Thus guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction not the standard for prosecution (although most prosecutors certainly think they will meet the standard for conviction or they wouldn't try the case).

 

[RKR]

First Fallen Angel are you an international law attorney? No? I didn't think so. Why do you think that Bin Laden deserves due process of law?

First and foremost Bin Laden is not a criminal he is a monster, who performed an ACT OF WAR against my country. Bin Laden is not entitled to what would normally be considered due process of law. Bin Laden has been a wanted man by our govenment for a number of years. Umm don't you remember a couple of embassy bombings a couple of years ago? Umm who do think was behind those... Micky Mouse? Do yourself a favor, pick up a book, pick up a newspaper. Read before you open your mouth and show your ignorance.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about here's a little quote from the FBI:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE

Oh yeah, you probably forgot about that....

Personnally, I think he deserves a slow painful death and I think you need to pick up some common sense. Now is the time for justice and while I hope the collateral damage to Afghan civillians is kept to a minimum, Bin Laden and the Taliban are going to get what they deserve. A US attack of Afghanistan is exactly what that country needs. Hopefully it'll be enough to topple the taliban and allow a represtentative form of government to be installed.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

 

[G-Man]

I think the US doesn't have to persecute Bin Laden - they can just declare war on him. Not that it matters, because I've heard that Bush will proove to Pakistan that Bin Laden is guilty, and if they'll believe him I think we can believe him as well

 

[TownsendVol]

either. I think they should just kill is A$$.
Thats my opinion.

 

[G-Man]

I don't think the US will have any other choice. He believes that dieing while fighting for Islam will bring him to heaven, so he'll fight the American soldiers 'till the end. His end, hopefully.

 

[duke o' york]

As far as the law is concerned, then the US is justified in taking action against Bin Laden if it can prove that he is guilty of any terrorist behaviour, not just that of 11th September. However, I don't think that they could just march into Afghanistan and shoot him - international law will surely require a trial. They could attach a subpoena to the front of a missile, but that would also flout international law. They can possibly get away with sending special forces into the country and denying ever having anything to do with it once he is killed. This would affect their international standing somewhat though. If they are prepared to take this risk to ensure the security of their nation then so be it. No other countries are going to be able to stop them are they? And if it is somehow proven that bin Laden was not responsable for the attacks, then they will still have improved the security of Americans by doing away with him. What the Islamic fundamentalist reaction will be if they go through with this plan remains to be seen.

 

[floppa21]

We DO have the right to take action against Ladin because he is a terrorist and we are fighting ALL terrorism. Is that enough to end this thread?

 

[CornMaster]

Your right FAL. There is no hard proof that he did it. They have traced 3 of the terriosts to Bin Laden......so what?? There were 15 more that went down with the planes.....who are they with?? And who ever it is...THAT's the man we want. (Unless of course that's Bin Laden too or one of his lackies...in which case that's 18/18 and I believe that's enough proof. )

But I agree with you FAL. If the facts ARE what we (public) know...then legally be can't be persecuted. But I don't think thats what they want...they want him and his organization dead....and all terriosts in the world. So it's not really Bin Laden pointed...but terriosm worldwide. And you can't forget the US always gets what the US wants...and it's own rules don't matter....so they will get him.

And to support my last point....anyone remember the Spy Plane in China??? I rest my case.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by CornMaster
Your right FAL. There is no hard proof that he did it. They have traced 3 of the terriosts to Bin Laden......so what?? There were 15 more that went down with the planes.....who are they with?? And who ever it is...THAT's the man we want. (Unless of course that's Bin Laden too or one of his lackies...in which case that's 18/18 and I believe that's enough proof.

How do YOU know this?
Your reading ALL intelligence?
Also, HE personally declared war on the US, so based on that alone the US could kill him (Attempting to destroy the US is a crime, you know).

But I agree with you FAL. If the facts ARE what we (public) know...then legally be can't be persecuted.

Just showed you he could.
And he is not being persecuted, but he will be Prosecuted, a real difference.

But I don't think thats what they want...they want him and his organization dead....and all terriosts in the world.

What sane person wouldn't?

So it's not really Bin Laden pointed...but terriosm worldwide. And you can't forget the US always gets what the US wants...and it's own rules don't matter....so they will get him.

An extremly biased and untruthful statement.
I'm surprised you spew such falsehood.
The US is, and always was been, about the rule of law.
And lest you forget, while on yon high horse, it was 6,000+ people this animal destroyed, in the name of his "cause", not the US attacking him that started this.
You would do well to keep that in mind.

And to support my last point....anyone remember the Spy Plane in China??? I rest my case.

You mean the one that was in international airspace, and was harrassed and forced down by Chinese interceptors in defiance of international law?
And whose crew was illeagally interned by China?
Is that the incedent you wish to invoke?

 

[Leowind]

Someone else may have already mentioned this, but just to be sure. Osamma bin Laden has already been indicted by (I believe) an international court of law for the embassy attacks in Africa a few years ago. Neither the US nor any other country would need any more than that fact to legally detain him for trial. Whether he actually masterminded this latest terror is completely irrelevant to the legality of that action.

As for the proof of his link to this attack. First, the US is not going to make public all of its proof and thereby compromise what little intelligence-gathering apparatus it has in place. Much of the proof will be classified information that might (or might not) be shared with other governments to convice them of his guilt, and would certainly be shared in a trial, but still kept confidential if at all possible. The public will not see all of the proof for a very long time, if at all. Secondly, as much as the media has focussed on bin Laden, the Bush administration has made very clear that he is not their only target in the war on terrorism, but indeed all international terrorists. Maybe all the hijackers weren't working for him--we'll go after the others too.

 

[floppa21]

Originally posted by floppa21
We DO have the right to take action against Ladin because he is a terrorist and we are fighting ALL terrorism. Is that enough to end this thread?

Plenty of terrorists can be taken care of on past "charges" or whatever. By "taken care of", I mean dealt with by courts or whatever will be done. (Don't want to disgust any European teenagers...)

Also, looking back to the first post, Ladin is not a United States citizen. Is he a citizen of any country? Does he have any rights besides what he says and does and claims?

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
You mean the one that was in international airspace, and was harrassed and forced down by Chinese interceptors in defiance of international law?
And whose crew was illeagally interned by China?
Is that the incedent you wish to invoke?

No...I mean the spy plane that was in Chinese airspace spying on the Chinese, that crashed into a Chinese plane and killing all onboard. And then demanding that the Chinese return the plane and people. Now....I disagree with the Chinese keeping the people, but the plane is now their property (in my mind).

But that's not the point in debate here.

It's the whole Bin Laden thing. Now, for the record, I'm for the war on Bin Laden and terriosm in general. Because he did try to take out the WTC before...and did declare war on the US. But the fact that he was instantly linked to the WTC tragity JUST BECAUSE 3 of the terroists had a LINK to Bin Laden. This "link" could be that they said "Hi" one day......the fact is, we (the public) don't have the info to conclude that Bin Laden is responsible for this act. And what were being told is circumstantial at best. So that is why I agree with FAL.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by CornMaster


No...I mean the spy plane that was in Chinese airspace spying on the Chinese, that crashed into a Chinese plane and killing all onboard.

No such incedent ever occured.
China admitted it's culpability in this matter, there pilot, flying over INTERNATIONAL airspace, crashed his fighter into a US survalence plane, that WAS NOT in Chinese airspace.
Doesn't matter WHY it was there, they can do the same here (and the Russians used to, for years, without either side attacking, as the Chinese did).

And then demanding that the Chinese return the plane and people.

From the attack that THEY unlawfully caused, not the other way around.

Now....I disagree with the Chinese keeping the people, but the plane is now their property (in my mind).

So. if I want a Canadian plane, all I need do is force it down, from international airspace, into my country, and it's mine?
You might want to rethink that logic. (The Chinese sure did, they shipped the plane back, and appologised for THEIR crime.)

But that's not the point in debate here.

No, it's not.

It's the whole Bin Laden thing. Now, for the record, I'm for the war on Bin Laden and terriosm in general. Because he did try to take out the WTC before...and did declare war on the US. But the fact that he was instantly linked to the WTC tragity JUST BECAUSE 3 of the terroists had a LINK to Bin Laden. This "link" could be that they said "Hi" one day......the fact is, we (the public) don't have the info to conclude that Bin Laden is responsible for this act. And what were being told is circumstantial at best. So that is why I agree with FAL.

So, previous attacks should just be ignored, like the Cole attack, the Kenya embassies, and the Saudi building he ALL took credit for?
All of those crimes warrent the Death Penalty in the US, and that is without the WTC attack.

This whole thread's premise is illogical.

 

[drake]

Jeez chris, why let ignorance annoy you so much?

 

[Flatlander Fox]

I slowly see it coming everywhere I go...

A softer line against the animals that did this is not the way to go on this...

Basically we are violating the terrorists rights huh?


Too bad for them...

But I guess a little sympathy for these guys is in order... They will all be dead soon enough. Or at least cut off from the money and hiding places that they have enjoyed for so long. Not just Bin Laden, but all of his fanatical counterparts.

Just for the record, I hope that we kill them though.

AS LONG AS PEOPLE AREN"T PROTECTING THEM WITH THIS KIND OF IGNORANCE! THIS "U.S.A. IS TWISTING FACTS TO SERVE THEIR OWN PURPOSES CRAP" IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!

If it were, there would have been rubble jumping all over Afghanistan the night after the attacks. Think a little bit and you'll see what the world is doing together to stop this.

You are right though, the U.S. will not prosecute them, the whole friggin' world will. And whoever wants to shed a tear for them then, can go ahead and do so.

 

[CornMaster]

(The Chinese sure did, they shipped the plane back, and appologised for THEIR crime.)

Hummm...I must have missed something. Can you provide a link or can someone else confirm this??? That's something I haven't heard yet. Last I heard Powell (I think) made a statement to China that was taken as a apoligy but worded such that it didn't say were sorry. Maybe I missed a press release or something....

No, it's not.

We agreed!!!

So, previous attacks should just be ignored, like the Cole attack, the Kenya embassies, and the Saudi building he ALL took credit for?
All of those crimes warrent the Death Penalty in the US, and that is without the WTC attack.

I didn't say that. I said we should attack BASED on other acts..NOT the RECENT WTC incident. Either you mis-understood or your trying to twist my words.

This whole thread's premise is illogical.

Not if you look at this incident and not other ones....which we are. Or I assumed that's what FAL meant. Based on evidence from this attack, Bin Laden (while he is the prime suspect) can't be blamed beyond a reasonable doubt, AND THAT is what FAL said....AND THAT is what I agree with!

I am NOT saying that Bin Laden is innocent, and I am NOT saying that he's a good guy. I'm saying that he can not be blamed beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Ashoka]

IF the US were to pursue a legal case, then there would be a need to present evidence to whatever court was set up to have jurisdiction.

Bin Laden would only need to be considered 'innocent until proven guilty" if he were prosecuted under US law in a US court. US citizens in other countries are prosecuted under the laws of the country of jurisdiction.

However, Acts of War are not fall outside of criminal or civil law (there are war crimes under international definitions.) During Pearl Harbor, the US did not have to go to the League of Nations to present a case for Japan's guilt - it was an act of war, the US declared war, and the war was prosecuted under the laws of the Geneva convention, to which both the US and Japan were signators.

In this case, Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1998 - - can a non-governmental entity declare war? Who knows. The atack of Sept 11 was declared as an act of war by the US (and NATO). The US has declared war on those who committed the action (thought the War Powers Act has not yet been invoked by the US Sentate, it is not essential to a deleration fo war.)

The US, NATO and our allies can thus pursue this war under the Genva convention (though bin Laden is of course not a signator ) A case, similar to a criminal case, is being built up against bin Laden and others for possible criminal prosecution by the European Union and other jurisdictions in which these people have broken various laws - - -but that does not mean the entire response must be limited to a criminal investigation.

IMHO

Ashoka (also not an international lawyer!)

 

[floppa21]

Originally posted by CornMaster

I didn't say that. I said we should attack BASED on other acts..NOT the RECENT WTC incident. Either you mis-understood or your trying to twist my words.

So what I said still stands. Ya know, where I already quoted myself? Who started this thread anyways? Cornmaster? I hope not. You're sayin what I'm sayin. It doesn't matter if Ladin did WTC or not. He' still goin down. Along with plenty of other terrorists. So what right does US have to "take action" against Ladin? Oh god I'm getting sleepy... bro... ken....... rec..... ord.....

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by floppa21
(..)It doesn't matter if Ladin did WTC or not. He' still goin down. Along with plenty of other terrorists. So what right does US have to "take action" against Ladin? Oh god I'm getting sleepy... bro... ken....... rec..... ord.....

These are pretty too-used threads.
Just asking: What makes mr. Usama to a terrorist,
if there isn't any proof? Must be very plain clear?