Should Osama Be Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
osama has made clear in numerous statements that he considers america his enemy, so we should inturn consider him ours. the proof of his involvement in 9/11 is overwellming... shoot him on sight.
The evidence is against him, for a man that has plenty of videos and audio tapes released in his name.
And Osama, if possible, should be arrested in the same manner as Saddam Hussein. The reason for that is that being arrested is considered a humiliating end, versus being killed or committing suicide.
Melon
And Osama, if possible, should be arrested in the same manner as Saddam Hussein. The reason for that is that being arrested is considered a humiliating end, versus being killed or committing suicide.
Melon
Last edited:
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Hello,
I think that the best way indeed would be to consider Osama innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't think it would be very difficult to prove the guilt,.Showing all the evidence to the whole world would then be another reminder what kind of low-life scum he is. By immediately judging/killing him you won't give out a clear signal of the strength of the justice system/democracy. Instead it would be interpreted as a sign that when the US doesn't like something, it just kills. Nevertheless, there'll always be people who won't believe anything regarding anti-Osama and pro-US, but that does not mean you can just disregard the values you cherish.
C ya!
Marty
I think that the best way indeed would be to consider Osama innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't think it would be very difficult to prove the guilt,.Showing all the evidence to the whole world would then be another reminder what kind of low-life scum he is. By immediately judging/killing him you won't give out a clear signal of the strength of the justice system/democracy. Instead it would be interpreted as a sign that when the US doesn't like something, it just kills. Nevertheless, there'll always be people who won't believe anything regarding anti-Osama and pro-US, but that does not mean you can just disregard the values you cherish.
C ya!
Marty
apparently howard dean feels osama should be considered innocent until proven guilty and should not be sentenced to death...
bang bang... there's another shot to the foot for the dean campaign...
bang bang... there's another shot to the foot for the dean campaign...
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Tim McVeigh was considered innocent until proven guilty, Malvo, etc. ,...
I could go on and on with a list of heinous murderers, I think you get the point.
Yes, I would prefer a President that supported the "Rule of Law" and not one that throws our Constitution and other international justice protocols out the window when it suits him.
This is what Saddam did, and Stalin and all the tyrants that we have always condemned.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
This is a toughie. In practice everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. However, Osama has chosen to implicate himself in innumerable crimes and atrocities. It wouldn't be difficult to prove that he'd committed the crimes. He should get the same kind of treatment that Milosevic is getting right now. Bust the guy for crimes against humanity, and yes, his guilt will have to be proven. But he'll prove himself a criminal just as Milosevic has.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
When you believe in justice for all, he is inocent until proven guilty. But i guess there is enough evidence against Osama.Dreadsox said:Why is this about Bush all of a sudden????
wow...ask a simple question and we are preaching about Rule of Law...
deep said:
mcveigh and malvo were american citizens. osama is an enemy combatent. he and his organization have declared war on america. there in lies a major difference.
and yes melon... i support bush. he wasn't my first choice in 2000... he was actually my thrid, behind mccain and bradley, but seeing as neither won their respective party's nomination, i put my support behind bush.
as for dean, i have serious fu
ing problems with his comments regarding 9/11... thus where my severe dislike for him comes from, not because he's a dem, not because he's the likely opponent of bush the way things are going.
Last edited:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Headache in a Suitcase said:
True. You could implicate him for crimes in several countries, not just one. Bust the guy and try him as a war criminal. You don't bust Common Criminal X as a war criminal. They haven't partied over 9/11. I don't really think this has anything to do with Bush. The issue came up because Dean stuck his foot in his mouth.
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Popmartijn said:
Nicely put.
If we do capture him, I say we throw him in jail for the rest of his life instead of put him to death. Let's see how tough he feels when he's with some of the other hardened criminals.
Angela
Bunbury
Refugee
Innocent until proven guilty does NOT work for Osama, he's not your typical arrested armed robber 
So this question is not valid.
So this question is not valid.
AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
i see no similarity between osama and saddam or osama and milosevic
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:Why is this about Bush all of a sudden????
wow...ask a simple question and we are preaching about Rule of Law...
Well, don't you think that a discussion of whether someone is innocent until proven guilty or not has anything to do with the rule of law?
And it wasn't all about Bush - one poster made a comment about how he would hope the President would act in the situation, but other than that nobody talked about Bush.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
AcrobatMan said:
I see why people are comparing them, but I agree with you AcrobatMan. Saddam and Milosevic were leaders who committed horrible crimes against the people of the countries they ruled. There's a good case for Saddam receiving the same treatment as Milosevic did when captured. However, Osama bin Laden is in no way similar - he's not leader of a country, he's head of a group which has committed acts of terrorism against the citizens of several countries. You can't compare the crimes of Milosevic or Saddam with the crimes of Al Qaeda.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
It's this kind of situation where I really like more and more Ant's idea of hard labour. Sticking someone in a cell for the rest of their lives achieves absolutely nothing for too many people for it to be any kind of punishment or justice. I really doubt Osama would be quaking in his boots being stuck next to Joe Schmoe who robbed a 7-11 and shot 3 clerks as a result. While Marty's point about a trial being a fair display of the beauty of democracy, the justice system is one which is so flawed that it is not a commendable system for individuals like Bin Laden. You cant look someone like him square in the eye and say "You commandeered 4 planes killing 3000 plus in the process, as well as countless other acts. Therefore buddy, we are putting you in jail. How do ya like them apples!"
It's hopelessly insufficient.
It's hopelessly insufficient.
The international rules of war need to be rewritten to deal with terrorist and terrorist organizations. I do not believe that these people deserve to be dealt with in the same manner as the Geneva Convention affords the soldiers of Nations that meet on the fields of battle. This is a different scenario, a different war.
As for Osama...he has made it clear...he will not be captured....see this week's NEWSWEEK....
As for Osama...he has made it clear...he will not be captured....see this week's NEWSWEEK....
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Dreadsox said:
You think people like him know compassion, guilt, remorse, fear?
beegee
Neon Zebra
not to mention the fact that once the virtual plane failed to make impact after six or seven viewings, i think he might catch on to the fact that there was nothing to worry about.
i think i felt what you were getting at, tho.
i think i felt what you were getting at, tho.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
I agree. We need new laws to deal with these
pieces of scum.Bunbury said:Innocent until proven guilty does NOT work for Osama, he's not your typical arrested armed robber
So this question is not valid.
What the hell are you talking about? Of course, it is valid, and, of course, "innocent until proven guilty" DOES work for Osama bin Laden.
In fact, I think we have plenty of evidence to PROVE his guilt--audio tapes, video tapes, etc. So this question, in many ways, is a non-issue, if only because he's given us PLENTY of evidence to PROVE his GUILT.
Melon
Dreadsox said:
So, please, pose an alternative. Kill everyone on sight? I don't think we have to worry about that. Just look at the situation in Iraq? Lock everyone up and throw away the key? How is that any different than Guantanamo Bay? And, even then, will that satisfy us? Can we thus declare an end to the "war on terror"? No...then we'll just be afraid of retaliation from all the Arab world for killing and locking everyone up.
And I'm sure it will show a great example of "democracy-in-action" to all those autocratic nations we're trying to make American satellites. After all, how will it be any different than how their own governments would respond to criminals?
Melon
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Maybe if he wears a sweater in court and changes his hairdo a bit he'll be found not guilty 
I think there's already sufficient evidence-I just want him captured ALIVE and brought to some sort of justice. I imagine many of the relatives of the victims of 9/11 might want the same.
Maybe Dean better stop inserting his foot in his mouth
I think there's already sufficient evidence-I just want him captured ALIVE and brought to some sort of justice. I imagine many of the relatives of the victims of 9/11 might want the same.
Maybe Dean better stop inserting his foot in his mouth
melon said:
Are you saying this is what we did in Iraq? Killed everyone on sight? Have we locked everyone up and thrown away the key? Even those whom we possibly have grounds to lock up we have not, for example Maqtada Al Sadr.
All I am saying is that this war against a terrorist organization does not fall within the rules of war as we have known it for the last century.
Can't we agree on that?
Dreadsox said:
What is the field of battle?
I think there's a problem here. It's not like hundreds of years ago where people met in a civilized fashion at a pre-determined field and then proceeded to kill each other and proclaim a victor.
In the Balkans, the soldiers of the Nations raped the women of the nations and gauged their eyes out. Is that meeting on the fields of battle? No. That is why there needs to be a War Crimes Court. Since suspicion of each other seems to be the flavour of the day, the chance of all nations agreeing to this is slim.
Similar threads
