<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



Assasination sounds simple, but it only removes the man, and he alone isn't the problem, it's his network and those like him, hence the war on terrorism. Special Forces to handle the problem quick and easy sounds good, but it just wouldn't have worked. You can't insert a small team(s) into a hostile country the size of Afghanistan and expect results. There are teams to operate behind enemy lines, but not that far behind them, and not alone. Special Forces got the 8 relief workers out, but couldn't be expected to bring down an entire terrorist network.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not saying that it would be easy. This is an operation of great "envergure". We would be talking about special teams both at home and abroad who are sent in to kill terrorists and suspected terrorists on sight (I know, you can't do this unless you have proof blablabla... [img]smile.gif[/img] ) but the fact remains that it has to be done :( . Yes, we would loose people, that is a fact of life but if you ask me 200 or even 500 soldiers lost world wide is far better than 7000 (and possibly more in the years to come) in one single strike.

Yes, we could do it in a way that is less costly on military personnel to us. That's the way that we are taking now. Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan rather than actually going to kill the terrrorists!

Hiram Sedai talked about the Nuremberg trials. It's funny but people seem to forget that crimes against humanity were not only commited by the Germans and Japaneses. The bombing of Drezden (sp) and the targetting of human populations (directly or inderectly) are prime exemples of that. The effect might be clouded by the supposed lack of intent but the fact remains: people who shouldn't die die.

I was a military officier for over nine years. I can tell you that killing civilians is not the proper course of war! War is to be kept (what ever the circonstances) to personnel of arms (no exeption). Those people have willingly taken the responsibility of arms. Killing civilians directly or indirectly is nothing more than cowardise and lack of professionalism! Unfortunaletly, justice is only handed out by the victors. In this world, we need to realize that all parties are accountable for actions, not only the loosers!

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

Very interesting topic. I'm fully aware of many other instances where there was a purge in society and civilians were killed. Stalin comes to mind the quickest because of the books I've read.

I mentioned the trials at Nuremburg because they tried the ones who got caught and could not sucessfully kill themselves, although I think Hermann Georring was sucessful. (my spelling is atrocious)

I was an enlisted gentleman in the U.S. Army for 8 years. I think that its an unspoken theme that civilians are supposed to be off limits. We do have a code of honor of sorts. I think this goes back to chivalry.

My very basic emotion about this terrorism subject is that they cheat.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:
Very interesting topic. I'm fully aware of many other instances where there was a purge in society and civilians were killed. Stalin comes to mind the quickest because of the books I've read.

I mentioned the trials at Nuremburg because they tried the ones who got caught and could not sucessfully kill themselves, although I think Hermann Georring was sucessful. (my spelling is atrocious)

I was an enlisted gentleman in the U.S. Army for 8 years. I think that its an unspoken theme that civilians are supposed to be off limits. We do have a code of honor of sorts. I think this goes back to chivalry.

My very basic emotion about this terrorism subject is that they cheat.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, many more exemples can be brought to light. As for Goering (also sp [img]smile.gif[/img] ) from memory, I believe that he took a cyanide pill during his incarceration leading to the trial... but memory is failling me... I should read is bio again!

As for terrorists, yes, they cheat but that doesn't allow us to! The code you talk about is far more ancient than chivalry. But the fact remains that throughout the ages, civilians have (edit: take always out) been labelled as "off limit" but were still targetted. Just like what we are doing today. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I really wish that people would learn from history rather than just trying to rewrite it again and again :(

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:


Yes, many more exemples can be brought to light. As for Goering (also sp [img]smile.gif[/img] ) from memory, I believe that he took a cyanide pill during his incarceration leading to the trial... but memory is failling me... I should read is bio again!<hr></blockquote>

It was a cyanide capsule. He befriended an American guard, whom he tricked into getting some personal items for him. He had the capsule hidden within the items, or so the story goes.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
...Personnally, I don't think that Bin Ladden should be brought to trial. Regardless of where he is tried (USA/Europe/International Court or Muslim court), the trial will not be impartial! A trial is truly the worst thing that we could do to ourself in this mess that we've created!

I said before that we should just send in special forces to assassinate him that would have been a much smarter course of action and much more effective than what we've been doing so far...<hr></blockquote>

But it is possible to have a fair and impartial trial.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'll assume that you are not aware that not all countries have jury system the like the one adopted by the US/Canada.

Here in the Netherlands, for instance, there is no jury service - a team of trained judges make the judgement of guilt. The International War Crimes court (located here in the Netherlands) uses this system and the team of judges are international. Have a look at the Milosovic trial and you'll see what I mean.

Unfortunately, Bin Laden could not be tried in this court because his alleged crimes are civilian, not military. Not so long ago, as I mentioned in the original post, the UN attempted to establish an international court for civilian crimes. The attempt failed because Bush blocked it and it was felt that, without the support or recognition of the US, there would be no point.

Had he agreed, then Bin Laden could have been tried in Singapore (the primary proposed location) and judged by a team of judges from say, the US, Germany, Russia, China, Iran, Egypt etc etc. That would be about as impartial as you can get.

As for sending in the special forces to assassinate him... NO!!!!!!! Isn't it written in the constitution of every civilised country that we are innocent until proven guilty and that we have the right to a fair trial to establish our guilt or innocence? If we give this up, then what have we become? What are we fighting for?...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
Unfortunately, Bin Laden could not be tried in this court because his alleged crimes are civilian, not military. Not so long ago, as I mentioned in the original post, the UN attempted to establish an international court for civilian crimes. The attempt failed because Bush blocked it and it was felt that, without the support or recognition of the US, there would be no point.<hr></blockquote>

Do you know of any links regarding Bush's blocking of the world civilian court? I'm not doubting you in the least, but I would like to read more about it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:


But it is possible to have a fair and impartial trial.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'll assume that you are not aware that not all countries have jury system the like the one adopted by the US/Canada.

Here in the Netherlands, for instance, there is no jury service - a team of trained judges make the judgement of guilt. The International War Crimes court (located here in the Netherlands) uses this system and the team of judges are international. Have a look at the Milosovic trial and you'll see what I mean.

Unfortunately, Bin Laden could not be tried in this court because his alleged crimes are civilian, not military. Not so long ago, as I mentioned in the original post, the UN attempted to establish an international court for civilian crimes. The attempt failed because Bush blocked it and it was felt that, without the support or recognition of the US, there would be no point.

Had he agreed, then Bin Laden could have been tried in Singapore (the primary proposed location) and judged by a team of judges from say, the US, Germany, Russia, China, Iran, Egypt etc etc. That would be about as impartial as you can get.

As for sending in the special forces to assassinate him... NO!!!!!!! Isn't it written in the constitution of every civilised country that we are innocent until proven guilty and that we have the right to a fair trial to establish our guilt or innocence? If we give this up, then what have we become? What are we fighting for?...<hr></blockquote>

Disclaimer: Sorry, didn't have time to edit or close the loop holes... it's supper time and my wife is about to kill me... [img]smile.gif[/img]


Yes, it is possible to have a fair trial. However, it's impossible for Bin Ladden to have a fair an impartial trial. As far as countries not having juries, I know about them. A party of judge is no fairer than a jury of pairs! Humans are humans and their decision will ALWAYS be clouded by emotions... regardless of position.

Now, if we want to talk about the International War Tribunal and the Milosevic case, we can talk about a good system. The guy doesn't recongnise the Tribunal (like the Germans at Nuremberg) but he's still tried there. So, he's tried by Western judges who consider Serbia's genocide of Albanians and Slovacs as the only attrocities of that time. Not many people actually know that the Albanians and Slovacs also commited genocide! Yet, their leaders got off easy because the US (and NATO and the world) only centered on Serbians... Quite frankly, I can see why the man doesn't recongnise the tribunal and claims that it's biaised. Just like Nuremberg, only the will of the victor is enforced... not true and impartial.

As far as an International Tribunal in this case, a true impartial tribunal could only be one with 1- no Americans or Americans sympathizers 2- no Anti-American 3- No party that has something to gain or loose by convicting Bin Ladden (ie: will not gain or be hurt by it) and 4- No muslim judge... so, what are we left with? Nobody!

Back to the international War Tribunal, I'll just take an exemple that happened last year. A government said publicly that an individual tried at that tribunal should be convicted for his action. When the time of conviction came, the guy was indeed convicted. Within a week of that decision, the judge from that country got called back home and now sits on that country's highest court! How's that for impartial. That tribunal, just like the UN, is not an efficient or good body on the world scene. It's a waste of ressources only there to hand out justice on the interests of the victors (see Nuremberg... not a single Allied general was tried there for their crimes and alot of them were committed!)

Finally, not all countries believe in the "innocent until proven guilty". Now, if you really want to, the US could have a mock trial were Bin Ladden is convicted for his action. As far as I'm concerned, the world, as a community, should come to grip with the fact that terrorism is a war. Unfortunately, it's a war that's fought not under democratic or freedom rule but under the terrorists rules. A terrorist (known or suspected but with proof) is a soldier and should be shoot on sight like any other soldier in a war! If you take them prisonner, then you have to deal with the Geneva convention for their treatment. So, that being said, I would have no objection with Bin Ladden being judge at the Internation War Tribunal. He has declared a Jihad (holy WAR) and that's enough in my book.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Do you know of any links regarding Bush's blocking of the world civilian court? I'm not doubting you in the least, but I would like to read more about it.<hr></blockquote>

I had a quick look, but to be honest this all happened around May? so most of the articles have already dissappeared. But, here's a link from CNN:

04May01: U.S. loses U.N. rights seat; China cheers

and a link from that famously conservative rag, the National Review:

National Review Online's Featured Article June 28

And just lately, from the Washington post (9th November), we learn that the current administration is still refusing to support the ICC:

Lawmakers Accept Provision Against World Court


I'm pretty sure you can more if you do a search on "International Criminal Court". Happy hunting!

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Skunk ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:

...Back to the international War Tribunal, I'll just take an exemple that happened last year. A government said publicly that an individual tried at that tribunal should be convicted for his action. When the time of conviction came, the guy was indeed convicted. Within a week of that decision, the judge from that country got called back home and now sits on that country's highest court! How's that for impartial...<hr></blockquote>

You are mis-informed. So I will give you the facts about the Lockerbie trial.
1. The judge in question was awarded the promotion two weeks prior to going to presid over the trial. He was given special leave to head the court and simply returned to his job afterwards.
2. The trial was held under Scottish law - it was not an international tribunal. The trial was held in the Netherlands on a military airbase which was temporarily deemed to be British territory (in the same way an embassy is considered to be foreign ground). The police inside the airbase were British - outside Dutch police patrolled the area.

Two Libyans stood trial for the plane bombing - one was convicted, the other cleared. Seems reasonabley impartial to me...

Actually all of these explain why the US isn't interested, I'll try to do some checking, too (no complaint, I just want some other POVs).

It's a shame I wasn't as interested six months ago! :( I've always been interested in the news, but never so much on the international level.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>