Headache in a Suitcase said: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...
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:
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.
Headache in a Suitcase 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.
Popmartijn said: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.
Dreadsox said:Why is this about Bush all of a sudden????
wow...ask a simple question and we are preaching about Rule of Law...
AcrobatMan said:i see no similarity between osama and saddam or osama and milosevic
FizzingWhizzbees said:
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.
Dreadsox said:I wish there were some kind of VR machine....one that got into their mind....places him in a window of the trade tower....looking at the plane coming at him....day in ....day out....slow motion.....
Dreadsox said: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....
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.
Dreadsox said: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.
melon 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
Dreadsox said: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.