Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[quadraphonics]

Maybe, I am staggered by the implication that a country can be at war for 10 years based on an assumption for which it cannot even provide sufficient evidence to convince its own courts.

What's staggering about that? The entire reason such a court case can't be built, is exactly that said country made an explicit decision to pursue the issue as a matter of war, and not as a matter of law enforcement.

If the USA had been working to bring Bin Laden to trial all these years, the story would be very different.

But yeah, I believe that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A problematic standard outside of an actual courtroom, or similar setting. Since there is no particular process for producing evidence or otherwise proving anything to you - nor any visible way of ensuring that your doubts are reasonable - you must presume that everyone everywhere is innocent, forever.

Unless you can eludicate some practically useful standard of "proof," that is. But I don't think you can.

 

[Billy T]

how the hell does a thread get 461 posts so quick? Is that a speed record for threads with more than 100 posts?

The first post was made at 12:50AM today (my Brazilian time) and my post 461 at 8:40 PM today, or 20.5 hours later. That is 22.5 post per hour for more than 20 hours! More than one every three minutes for 20 hours!

 

[superstring01]

Were they lying?

No. But you are.

Also, I'm wondering about your ability to read.

Whatever evidence had been obtained by other sources (authors, intelligence community) need not have even been brought up. No leg work needed to be done.

Why?

Enough already existed for a trial and there was never any intention of allowing him to enter the USA anyway. His death was always the first option. Barring a swift death at the hands of the CIA or special forces, were a trial ever to happen, it would have been a monumental waste of resources to build a separate court case (which is an expensive endeavor) when undeniable evidence, sufficient to warrant the death penalty, already existed and had already been completed.

~String

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So the DOJ is the conspiracy option and your reading list is the accredited source? The problem I see with that is that the US never exercised the option to put him on trial when given the choice and chose to kill rather than submit him to due process

Or rather he denied himself due process as he refused to be captured alive.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh for pete's sake Sam go and check the DOJ's bloody website and type in Bin Laden and you will find a bloody warrant for his arrest! Here's the link:

Yeah I read about his indictment too

He never stood trial though - but I believe he confessed to the bombings

Now if we could only sort out which Osama bin Laden it was

Or rather he denied himself due process as he refused to be captured alive.

The burden of proof does not lie with the defendant.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

And I asked, Do you consider him a traitor because he doesn't believe/behave as the majority of the ummah? To which your answer was

So ignorance seems the answer since you can't even give an opinion as to whether, you consider him a traitor because he doesn't believe/behave as the majority of the ummah?

Cicular, I have give my response.

 

[superstring01]

Were they lying?

Wait?

No. I don't know that they were or weren't lying.

But numerous, independent researchers, gov't institutions, news papers, authors have all done research with original source material and personal investigation and have written strikingly similar works on the matter.

So, likewise (and you've yet to answer), do you apply this same standard to your own beliefs? Do you ask for a personal guided tour of the evidence when you read the nonsense that supports your world view? The obvious answer is: No. You do not. Which is both dishonest and a great deal hypocritical.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

No. But you are.

Also, I'm wondering about your ability to read.

Whatever evidence had been obtained by other sources (authors, intelligence community) need not have even been brought up. No leg work needed to be done.

Why?

Enough already existed for a trial and there was never any intention of allowing him to enter the USA anyway. His death was always the first option. Barring a swift death at the hands of the CIA or special forces, were a trial ever to happen, it would have been a monumental waste of resources to build a separate court case (which is an expensive endeavor) when undeniable evidence, sufficient to warrant the death penalty, already existed and had already been completed.

~String

Correct, the whole grand jury was a sham. There was never any intent to subject him to due process. He was tried, convicted and sentenced without ever standing trial.

In Mumbai, we call these "encounter" deaths - basically lawmakers who consider themselves above the law

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/06/21/8490.shtml

Its also called vigilante justice or extra judicial killing

An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Cicular, I have give my response.

No you have yet again made a claim which you refuse to support..well done you don't disappoint.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

No you have yet again made a claim which you refuse to support..well done you don't disappoint.

I gave an opinion actually.

 

[spidergoat]

I was talking about all of the children in afganistan that have died in the past due to americas "Search for bin laden" Cough I mean war on Islam and northern alliance drug trade.

Where is your evidence for that?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The burden of proof does not lie with the defendant.

True in a court of law but hey we shot up Bonnie & Clyde precisely because they wouldn't allow themselves to be brought in so the burden of proof could be hurled against them. Do you reckon they were innocent too?

 

[madanthonywayne]

So if Pakistani troops decided to take out a terrorist - against whom they could provide no evidence of terrorism - or at least none that would stand up in court - without the permission of the US government inside the US, would it be a "military operation"?

Hence my comment on vigilante justice. It was not a military operation it was an extrajudicial assassination. It was an illegal operation.

Remember this quote:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

I assume we'll let Pakistan off the hook by assuming they somehow didn't know OBL was in town. I seriously doubt they'll raise much of a fuss about our violating their sovereignty.

 

[superstring01]

@ SAM

I couldn't care less what you call it in Mumbai.

I asked you if you apply the same rigorous standard when vetting your sources and reading materials? Or does this sort of thing only apply to things that contradict your world view?

As to the "never intended to bring him to trial". . . DUH. Why bother? He didn't deserve a trial. Those that mattered (including myself, not that I matter) knew he was guilty, was not a citizen and was not on our soil. I'm never for a sham trial anyway.

A quiet death should have been given. I'm not sure it should have been announced after the fact. The US shouldn't have even taken credit. The compound should have been destroyed and not a word uttered by anybody as to who, why, where and what for. Same applies to all the other terrorists.

Just stealthy death by an unknown out of the dark. And then nothing.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

True in a court of law but hey we shot up Bonnie & Clyde precisely because they wouldn't allow themselves to be brought in so the burden of proof could be hurled against them. Do you reckon they were innocent too?

Innocent of what? Guilt or innocence is determined by the legal process, not unlawful killings of those accused

There is a reason that people have a right to legal representation in sane societies.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Where is your evidence for that?

Evidence for women and children being killed in afganistan by NATO forces?, Uhm it's plastered al over the internet if you care to look.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@ SAM

I couldn't care less what you call it in Mumbai.

I asked you if you apply the same rigorous standard when vetting your sources and reading materials? Or does this sort of thing only apply to things that contradict your world view?

As to the "never intended to bring him to trial". . . DUH. Why bother? He didn't deserve a trial. Those that mattered (including myself, not that I matter) knew he was guilty, was not a citizen and was not on our soil. I'm never for a sham trial anyway.

A quiet death should have been given. I'm not sure it should have been announced after the fact. The US shouldn't have even taken credit. The compound should have been destroyed and not a word uttered by anybody as to who, why, where and what for. Same applies to all the other terrorists.

Just stealthy death by an unknown out of the dark. And then nothing.

~String

Well that's what Mossad would have done anyway.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Innocent of what? Guilt or innocence is determined by the legal process, not unlawful killings of those accused

There is a reason that people have a right to legal representation in sane societies.

Innocent of crime. I mean they were shot up without a court case:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

Evidence for women and children being killed in afganistan by NATO forces?, Uhm it's plastered al over the internet if you care to look.

Same with the connection between Osama, 9/11, and Al Quida.


If you care to look.

 

[quadraphonics]

Now if we could only sort out which Osama bin Laden it was

Are those supposed to look like images of different people?

Because they don't. And you're making yourself look loopy and unreliable by suggesting otherwise.

The burden of proof does not lie with the defendant.

There is no "defendent," since we are not prosecuting a court trial, and so this is beside the point. What we have are parties to an armed political conflict. You understand that war and criminal justice are different things, no?

But what I find interesting is the (forceful) implication that the US justice system must work in the sense of rendering foreign wars into simple police actions to be handled by the justice system. While the superficial appeal of such a stance is obvious - the DoJ doesn't have an OBL indictment for 9/11 /snark!!! - I'd think you'd be a bit more hesitant about endorsing the USA as world policeman.