Skunk,
I believe that Usama would not fall under the category of "politcal asylum" he would fall in the category of murderer and would be subject to the extradition treaties that all of the major European counties have with the USA. In addtion the NATO charter "an attack on one is an attack on all", and he would therefor be a military target and subject to military trial. I believe the NATO charter would take presidence(sp?)

Ron_Bman
I thought that the reasons for establishing the court were pretty obvious - but the reasons why anyone would want to oppose it were not so clear. Hence the leaning of the articles.

That said, I'm glad you're going to have a look yourself for the different POVs - it's the only way to get a balanced opinion.

Mr Harris
Political asylum seeker or accused (but untried) murderer makes no difference. He would be treated the same under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The other problem with trying him in a military court is the US itself is calling him a criminal rather than an opposing soldier. He is a Saudi citizen (a US ally) not afghan and he is not employed by the Taliban govt either. He represents no recognised state and therefore can not be defined as a soldier.

PS. Nato does NOT take precedence over the ECHR...

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

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


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...<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, wrong trial. The judge in question is a "she" and it was a trial with regards to the ex-Yougoslavia war taking place at the International War Tribunal in The Hague if I'm not mistaking.

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

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
Ron_Bman
I thought that the reasons for establishing the court were pretty obvious - but the reasons why anyone would want to oppose it were not so clear. Hence the leaning of the articles.

That said, I'm glad you're going to have a look yourself for the different POVs - it's the only way to get a balanced opinion.

Mr Harris
Political asylum seeker or accused (but untried) murderer makes no difference. He would be treated the same under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The other problem with trying him in a military court is the US itself is calling him a criminal rather than an opposing soldier. He is a Saudi citizen (a US ally) not afghan and he is not employed by the Taliban govt either. He represents no recognised state and therefore can not be defined as a soldier.

PS. Nato does NOT take precedence over the ECHR...

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Skunk ]<hr></blockquote>
Legal stuff is not my bag, Extradition treaties are not easily ignored by either party. Legally ECHR may take precedence but in reality the NATO treaties are going to win out.

I do believe you but perhaps you could give me more details about this case, like the judge and defendant involved? I'm very interested as I've not read anything about this in the papers (and believe me, in a small country like the Netherlands this would make news). It probably happened during my vacation (21 days in the Sun - I love the long vacations in this country!!)

By the by, all of the judges appointed to the war crimes court in the Hague are considered to be the most learned and 'top' judges in their country. To be asked to sit on the Tribunal is a considerable honour - one that is not normally offered to a judge with less than 20 years experience on the bench. The job is up there on a par with presiding in the US Supreme Court. Given this, when the judges 'tour of duty is over', this enhanced CV is going to land him/her a pretty fancy job...Unless of course there are rumours that there decisions lacked legal merit.

Skunk, just a quick point. There is no way on earth that the Libyan who was convicted actually bombed the airplane over Lockerbie. If you look at what the judges have actually said they had severe doubts. They proved that the CIA had fabricated evidence and paid people to speak out against the other guy - which is why he wasn't convicted. But they decided that it would be impossible for he CIA to have done the same with the other suspect... There are 30 pages to their final verdicts, detailing all the holes in the prosecution case. And then they convicted one guy anyway. I hate to say it but the CIA and MI5 wanted that one out of the way. So I think the idea of impartiality has gone out of the window for me personally.

Here is a point someone made to me the other day which got me thinking. What if we find Osama Bin Laden, track him down to his cave, and then he shoots himself.

No justice.

No revenge.

Just a dead man in a cave.

Will that make the world a better place?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
...If you look at what the judges have actually said they had severe doubts. They proved that the CIA had fabricated evidence and paid people to speak out against the other guy - which is why he wasn't convicted. But they decided that it would be impossible for he CIA to have done the same with the other suspect... There are 30 pages to their final verdicts, detailing all the holes in the prosecution case. ...Here is a point someone made to me the other day which got me thinking. What if we find Osama Bin Laden, track him down to his cave, and then he shoots himself.

No justice.

No revenge.

Just a dead man in a cave.

Will that make the world a better place?<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the judges had no 'severe' doubts as to the guilt of the first party. Their doubts were over the man that they eventually let go primarily, as you said, because the main evidence against him was based on a paid CIA informant. In fact their summary stated:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Case No: 1475/99 - OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD SUTHERLAND in causa HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE v ABDELBASET ALI MOHMED AL MEGRAHI and AL AMIN KHALIFA FHIMAH, Prisoners in the Prison of Zeist, Camp Zeist (Kamp van Zeist), The Netherlands (Accused)
[89]We are aware that in relation to certain aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. We are also aware that there is a danger that by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified. However, having considered the whole evidence in the case, including the uncertainties and qualifications, and the submissions of counsel, we are satisfied that the evidence as to the purchase of clothing in Malta, the presence of that clothing in the primary suitcase, the transmission of an item of baggage from Malta to London, the identification of the first accused (albeit not absolute), his movements under a false name at or around the material time, and the other background circumstances such as his association with Mr Bollier and with members of the JSO or Libyan military who purchased MST-13 timers, does fit together to form a real and convincing pattern. There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the Indictment as amended.

[90] The verdicts returned were by a unanimous decision of the three judges of the Court.<hr></blockquote>

As for Osma Bin Laden shooting himself. No the world would not be a better place. Justice has to be seen to be taking place.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Skunk ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
That's what I think. What worries me is that, in our haste to apprehend/kill him, we trample on the very values we are supposed to be defending...<hr></blockquote>


Ok then, explain HOW we should do it then?

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


But it is possible to have a fair and impartial trial.
<hr></blockquote>


No need for a trial for Binny.. The CIA should have at him first, then all the victims familys (In a circle around him) and beat his ass 4821 times. Then if he's still alive, let the cops and NYFD finish his ass off.

Trial? lol.. you MUST be joking.. Would you have wanted HITLER to get a fair and impartial trial too? Give me a break (As the 20/20 guy says) ;)

Many years ago, I was out shopping with my cousin when an IRA bomb was detonated. I had a shaft of glass embedded in my arm - but my cousin has a piece in her neck. It pierced the main artery and she died. I never really began living again until I left London and came to Amsterdam.

In 1989, the police caught an IRA cell working in London - they believed that they were responsible for what happened to me and my cousin, but they couldn't prove it. Those guys went to jail anyway for various offenses, possessing explosives, guns etc. etc...

Now, at the time, if someone could have given me the opportunity to meet these guys and had them tied to a chair and given me a gun... I would have had a lot of fun shooting away fingers and toes, one by one.

They are all free now. Courtesy of the terms of the peace process. And, all these years later, well, I'll be honest - I'm not about to hug them and say, "Don't worry about it man, it's all in the past." But I'm now about to blow their heads of either. That way just leads to more bombs, more shooting and a generous helping of hatred all round. I look back now and see that justice caught up with these people (whether they were responsible or not) and they were not martyred themselves - so the cycle of hatred does not continue.

Right now, I know the pain, anger and utter hatred that the people of NY and Washington are feeling. And I know what the relatives are capable of doing if they were left in the room alone with Bin Laden. But they *are* better than that - and society needs to protect them from themselves right now until they can think clearly once more.

Kill this man without a trial and you never really get to look him in the eyes and see why he did this (if at all) or why he is connected. Kill him without trial and you sink to his level. No, you sink to a level lower than him because we *are* civilised and we *should* know better.
Kill him without trial and make a martyr out of him, rather than exposing a criminal and watch other, misguided zealots rise to take his place.

And just as a foot note. In 1988, british soldiers 'executed' a 3 man IRA cell in Gibralter. They could have taken them alive - all three were badly wounded. Instead they shot them dead as they lay on the ground. A month later, my cousin and 13 others were dead.
Coincidence?

Look at the peace process in Northern Ireland right now and LEARN. Look at the reconciliation process in S.Africa and LEARN.

Now is the time to defend our lives, our property and to serve the greater good. Fine - send in the warplanes it's neccessary right now. But it is NEVER neccessary to stir up more hatred with executions and martyrs. It is NEVER neccessary to spit at the democracy and justice that we hold so dear.

If that is what people want, then I wished I'd died too all those years ago.