Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I was listening to Radio4 this morning on the way home and they were discussiing what, if he is caught, should be done with Bin Laden. There seems to be a couple of strains of thought on this one. First is the US Military Tribunal. The argument goes he is a like a general in an army and therefore should be tried as such in a military tribunal. There are problems with this mind you as the other argument points out. Firstly, if you try him in a military tribunal with the argument that he is a like a general in a war then you are actually giving him a status of importance that he does not deserve because he is just a criminal. A trobunal would accord him a certain kind of legitmacy in the realms of what war means. This was an argument put forward by myself last year and is one that was used during the worst time in the Troubles. We never acknowledged the 'declaration of war' made by the IRA and always maintained that they were nothing more than criminals. To acknoweldge them would in effect give them legitimacy as some kind of legal military actors which they aren;t. The other obvious criticism of a military tribunal would be that if you accept that he is ageneral and must face the military then, consequential, you must be accepting that he and his 'soldiers' are prisoners of wars under the Geneva COnvention, which obviously they have not been, 'unlawful combatents' I believe the phrase was. THe final criticism is that everyone knows military tribunals are rigged. This is not meant to be an insult, more an observation, how many people have faced a court marshall and actually won?

The other option put on the table by some therefore is a halfway house type option. Basically a Lockerbie style solution, where you find a place to hold it (New York would be good) you have a wide range of judges from across a number of countries, and justice is dispensed under the guidelines of worked out set of rules specific for the case itself.Afterall, the argument goes, many people died from other countries on Spetember 11th thereofre those other countries ought to have some form of say in how the prosecution of the crime be done.

Personally, I thikthis question is reminiscant of the one prior to Nuremburg at the end of WW2. Churchill didn't want Nuremburg, he wanted to take them all out in private and shoot them. I beleive it was Truman who leaned over his shoulder and said gently 'if you want to be seen to be doing justice better to do it in the open lest we be just as bad them', and Churchill coneded the point.

I dunno perosnally, what do you think will be done?

Note: similar to an oxsan post a while back about Kashmir, the question is what do you think 'will' be done, not what do you think 'should' be done.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1575

(Edit - I didn't read the last line about saying what *will* be done, not what should be done. What will be done is military tribunal. Bush & Co. are too cowboy to see the detriments to that, and the benefits of other methods. )

Now back to the regularly scheduled ramble:

I worry about military tribunals because it will inevitably be rigged, no doubt, and everyone in the world will know it. So we execute bin Ladin, and boom! he's a martyr to American evil, etc. Better to do something a bit more ... open. Plus, what if bin Ladin got Tom Cruise to defend him? Chances are Jack Nicholson would want to get involved, and then bin Ladin'll be running around free in no time.

I hadn't considered the idea of the international tribunal in New York, and find it most favorable - especially if we get some Middle Eastern people voting, too. Could really send a message. There are, of course, warrants out for his arrest in America, so there is some legal wrangling that would have to happen so that he would fall under this other, special jurisdiction before/instead of regular American courts.

Obviously you can't try him in regular court - there are too many loopholes - though I think it would be marvelous if we could try him in the normal US justice system, treat him just like any common murder, and inject his ass full of poison ten years from now... but like I said, it's too easy for a technicality to get in the way.

So, yeah, get an international tribunal together... 3 Americans, 2 Arabs, 1 Brit, 1 Frog, 1 Ruski, 1 Chink, 1 Jew, 1 Darkie, and 1 Spic. Twelve man jury (carefully selected). Live on Court TV for 3 weeks. Attrocity after attrocity, bin Ladin propoganda video after video. Bad bad bad mean mean mean boogers and snot! Then the jury deliberates, comes back in 2 days: GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY as sin, lethal injection in 1 month, to be broadcast LIVE LIVE LIVE all over the world. Then everyone tunes in to watch OBL wimper like a baby (because we dope him up before the broadcast to make him cry and wet himself) and buy the farm. Hurrah. Not all that inflamatory, if you're an Arab of the terrorist persuasion, to see your leader crying and wetting himself on TV like a coward. Kind of demoralizing, right?

Or something. Maybe I'm just macabre in that I believe executions should be open to the public, so their deterent capabilities can be more effective. Of course, I am sort of not so in favor of the death penalty... but OBL has a special place in my heart. I don't know... maybe we should just lock him away in North Dakota for the rest of his life... that would suck big time for him.

To be off subject entirely, capital punishment, as a concept, is perfectly fine with me. I see no problem in culling our own flock to guarantee the safety and civility of our society - you calmly and rationally decide to murder someone, then you die. You blow some shit up and kill people, you die. You're a danger to society. The big fucking problem is that we get it wrong so very often. This dude in Texas right now - supposed to be their 300th execution since capital punishment was reintroduced... they're ready to take him out based on testimony by two paid witnesses, both of whom are drug addicts, one of whom is getting a reduced sentence for "performing well" on the stand. Plus, the prosecution covered up stuff during the trial. And Texas is okay with it... I'm not cool with that - that's some fucked up shit. (The victim was white, the accused is black). So, while I'm ok with the idea of capital punishment, I'm not okay with our implementation of it.

Anyway, rambling ends here.

Leaky.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 6985

I think they should chop him up and feed him to starving people.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: The Bad Side of Mayberry
Posts: 220

Here is my theory, key word here is "theory"...

I think if we catch him, and maybe we already have, we will never know about it. You notice how the last Friday there was a lot of news wires carrying news about a battle and maybe we caught Osama's sons? Very quickly that news item went to the bottom of the pile and now is not metioned. The public may never know if we caught him or not. That way, we can do with him whatever we want.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19119

I doubt if it will ever need consideration. He isn't going to let himself be taken alive.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: The Bad Side of Mayberry
Posts: 220

I think he is too chicken-shit to kill himself.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

Did he not fight as a muhjadeen against the Russians? That was a fucking scary conflict for both sides.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged