What To Do With Laden? ? ?

What should be done if the US DOES get bin laden caught and brought to the US...

Should he be given a "fair trial", if so who would be part of the jury considering like no one doesnt know about bin laden and what "he has done".

Should he just be shot on sight , which is what most likely will be done...

Should he be tortured like most Americans want to happen to him after all the deaths he has caused..

Should the US just jail him and let him live like most US criminals live... (with a butthole that could have a watermelon slide into it with ease)

This fourm is about ethics and such... so what do you guys belive should happen with bin laden if ever captured by US troops?

_NetSyN_

It is most probable that he will never come to trial if caught. I think the powers that be have much riding upon his permanent disappearance.

In a sense I agree with Gold eagle, but I think the US would stand to gain more for putting him on trial than just buy making him dissapear. All sane people of the world want justice to be done because of September 11th, and thats the point, justice must be *seen* to be done.
Of course another option could be a 'leaked' video of bin laden trying to escape or something.... Either way I think death is too good for bin laden.



:hiphop:

*sigh*...All I hope is that this discussion won't turn into something as immature as this one ...

Anyway, here's some interesting links:

Who is Osama Bin Laden

Here's an interesting quote from

Quote:

---

Globalresearch
Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.

While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.

In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

---

Interview with Bin Laden

How stuff works: Bin Laden (?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by the_g_nee
All sane people of the world want justice to be done because of September 11th, and thats the point, justice must be *seen* to be done.

---

The point indeed is that justice must be *seen* to be done... but then again, that's the entire problem: what is justice? Justice according to most Europeans/Americans would be to set Bin Laden to trial, but there's a big difference between American and European justice, and between how Europeans and Americans feel about justice. Let's say the American government captures Bin Laden, and executes him: this would not only cause a diplomatic disturbance between the American and European governments... just think about the consequences for those in favor of Bin Laden... I think 9/11 will be nothing compared to what would happen then...
Let's say they just put him in prison: I'm pretty sure that would cause American riots...

Just pointing out that this matter isn't as easy at it seems to be...

ok antionline bumped me off for a few minutes for an upgrade.

so I don't know what happened to my post. If you see a few copies - you'll know what happened.

here it is-

good grief. Negative you make a keen observation, that other thread did go downhill fast. I shouldn't have posted to it. I usually stay away from cosmos but..

Onto your globalresearch point - I must hasten to point out that several European govts have also backed the osama types in the past - and today- for expediency's sake. How short sighted of them all.

It does ring true that several "first world" govts often make mischief by quietly coddling certain dictator/renegade individuals and later pay the price.


Will they ever learn

This matter of backing terrorists,revolutionaries, and
renegades goes way back. You'd think that governments
would learn.

In 1917, the German gov't helped get Lenin into
Russia to destabilize the Russian regime.
They could only see as far as the war
they were fighting at the time.

At the same time, Western allies in that war promised
to give "national self determination" to every
minority group in europe, if they would turn against
Germany and Austria.

They promised the same land to the Palestinians and to the
Zionists etc etc.

Osama Bin Laden was apparently one of those "freedom
fighters" supported by the CIA to fight against Russia
in the 1980s

The USA is worse than most in shortsightedness,
but they can't break the habit I guess.
The last politician with any knowledge of history was
Winston Churchill, but he made similar mistakes.
:cool:

Negative,

I dont think there is a big difference in American and European justice, both states are democratic and have similar views on what justice is. There is however a big difference in potential punishment for a given crime, but this varies from state to state in the US as it does from country to country in Europe.

Quote:

---

The point indeed is that justice must be *seen* to be done... but then again, that's the entire problem: what is justice?

---

Justice :

• The quality of being just; fairness
• The principle of moral rightness
• The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honour, standards or law
• The administration and procedure of law

The penultimate point is the one that applies best in this case I think, 'the upholding of standards and law'. When Bin Laden ordered the suicide attacks (yes perhaps this is yet to be prooved) he broke the laws of the US. So, he has to be tried in the US. So a jury of his peers will sit, listen to evidence presented, then deliberate until a decision is made as to his guilt or not.
However when a terrorist was 'caught' who it was believed to have planted the bomb that brought down a Pam-Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie in Scotland. It was decided that it would not be fair to the terrorists defence if he were to be tried in Scotland due to mass public opinion. So a Scots court was set up in Belgium, where he was tried. Maybe this scenario might be chosen where a US court is set up in another country, but in truth I dont think there is anywhere in the world where truely impartial jurors could be found due to the nature of the crime.
Maybe Bin Laden should be tried in accordance with laws that his Al-Qaida group was so keen to enforce, and did so with such brutality. Lets see, if a thief would have a foot and a hand cut off for stealing, then I wonder what would happen for a 2000+ mass murderer?

Quote:

---

Let's say the American government captures Bin Laden, and executes him: this would not only cause a diplomatic disturbance between the American and European governments...

---

I dont think it would, I truely doubt if any European country would complain if Bin Laden were put to death, how could it? There might however be concerns raised by Islamic religions or countries.
And if Bin Laden were just put in jail, there would almost certainly be riots. But why might there be riots? Because this would be the publics way of saying 'this is waaay wrong'. And that in the end is who justice must answer to - the public, the publics opinion.



:)

the_g_nee - a well written post.

Even after all this it remains doubtful if he will be "caught" and much more so that he'll be put to trial. In anyone's court. Not even the saudis want him back.

Sadly gold eagle I feel this might be the case (I pray that it is not though) :( Though you can

bet there are a ALOT of intelligence agencies throughout the world looking for him. I did

however see a news bulletin saying that the Pakistani's believed him to be dead because

he was unable to get medical assistance during the US bombing of Afghanistan (unable to

get insulin? Perhaps I am wrong, I forget exactly what though). Though like any news

program I have taken this belief / view with a pinch of salt.



:hiphop:

Yes he did look sickly in that last video, perhaps because he ran out of medicine. What is possible is that the sas or g berets already have him and are simply disposing of the evidence.

Or maybe he got all the way out to somalia. :confused:

I think America will make an example of Bin Laden.
They will Kill him on sight. First because, He could not
get a fair trial here, Second why should we (the taxpayers)
pay for his defense (not that he is entitled to one) and Third,
I know I do not want my tax dollars to support him in jail.

TotalChaos(D~Sq , everyone, no matter who they are is entitled to a defence - a fair hearing. Because that is what seperates democratic society with evil sadistic regimes like that of the Al-Qaida. Just because bin laden is a monster does not mean he should forfeit a fair trail, if we were to do so, then we would be stooping down to his level.



:)

the_n_nee I'm not saying he should not get a fair trial,
what I was trying to say was is he entitled to a "trial"
under the tribunal, a not to mention CAN he get a fair trial.
From my understanding under the tribunal he will have
no defense.

I say if we bring him back we should give him a trial then if he gets convicted, kill him slowly and painfully.

I think this link pretty much explains my position on the issue. I know it sounds like I'm just saying it for the attention, but I honestly believe that. I believe the punishment (for violent crimes) needs to match the crime. Now, obviously, there is no way to truly make him repay for killing thousands, and hurting so many thousands more. The closest we can come is to torture him as horribly as possible. I know the main fad in the goal of punishment is rehabilitation right now, but exactly how do you rehabilitate somebody as extreme as bin Laden? There really isn't any reasonable way. Needless to say, the secondary goals of punishment are retribution, and deterrence. I think it's obvious how both of those factors fit into my suggested method of punishment. It also lets the victims loved ones have a little piece of their revenge, so they can have their peace of mind back. Not only that, but it sends the message to other terrorists/wannabes that if you try to pull **** like this, there will be serious consequences. I know that a punishment like this is completely inhuman, but once and a while you have to show your wrath to keep others from walking all over you. I don't like it either, but it has to be done.

Seriously, though. He's going to destroy one of the main economic centers of the most powerful and influencial country on earth, and people want him to not have to pay for it? As nasty as it sounds, the remorseless killing of thousands and the destruction of a central national landmark/economic center calls for something extreme. If you can't handle it, don't look, but it has to be done.

stflook - the link doesn't open for me. Anyway it must be horrible based on your post. I see your mood reflects perhaps on this issue...

How to make the punishment fit the crime though? What does a monster deserve, once convicted?


:(

OK, let's have another go at it without the vB code. Yes, it's horrible, and in my opinion, one of the most horribly, sickeningly painful things a human can go through. As much as people don't like to think about it, though, it's as close as we can come to a punishment that fits the crime.


http://www.antionline.com/showthread...318#post452318

My proposal is very simple. This one can disappear forever (I don't mean kill) and let the world in peace. Mr Bush should do the same, and the ones that brought him the power. It doesn't sound real, but things should be more simple than they are