What if Omsa Bin Laden seeks political asylum in Europe?

Scenario:
Supposing Osma Bin Laden somehow manages to board an international flight and arrives at London Heathrow airport. He immediately hands himself over to the immigration officials and claims political asylum...

Issues raised:
Can he be handed over the US government for trial?
In a word, NO. The European Convention on Human Rights expressely forbids handing over *anyone* (no matter what they are suspected of having done) to another power if:

a) A civilian is to be tried in a military court
Bush just signed a law into effect allowing foreign 'terrorists' to be tried in military courts - this is contrary to European law and the extradition would be held up until the recieving power agreed to hold the trial in a civilian court.

b) The person would receive 'an unusual or cruel punishment'
This would include the Death penalty or incarceration without hope of release/parole. So again, the recieving country would have to make an undertaking that neither the death penalty would be applied and that he would be seriously considered for parole within 25 years.

c) The person would receive a fair and impartial trial
Ouch! The real sticking point. Osma Bin Laden could never receive a fair trial in the US. He has been villified, tried and convicted by the press for both the Embassy bombings and the September 11th attacks. Senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have publicly claimed his guilt... Almost everyone in the west believes that he is guilty without having seen the evidence for themselves.
It would be impossible to find an unbiased US jury. It can equally be said that virtually every US citizen considers themsevles to be victims of the attack. Would it be fair to send someone to trial with a jury made up of the victims?

And if Britain (or any other European country) just handed him over to the US anyway? Well, apart from stomping all over the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, we would have succeeded in becoming just like those guys that sent those planes into the WTC... And the Muslim countries would view *that* as symbol of 'western hypocrisy' and they would consider a trial in the US to be a 'show trial'. And Osma Bin Laden would gain martyr status...


If the US had agreed to sign in to the concept of an 'International court for civilian criminals' when it was being discussed (not so long ago), this dillema would not exist. Let's hope that the Bush administration has a change of heart on this issue or that Osma Bin Laden dies at the hands of the Northern Alliance (Not NATO!). Anything else will increase terrorism tenfold...

Oh BELIEVE me, we would get him... [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img]


[img]graemlins/tank.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/tomcat.gif[/img]

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

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...

Just because he asks for political asylum doesn't mean he'll get it. Who would give him asylum? That act alone would trample what is suppose to be "good".

Since he is the leader of a military style organization would anyone really expect him to be treated as a civilian? I don't think he should be tried in a US court anyway, if captured alive, he should be tried before an international court. He really likes killing Americans, but Americans aren't the only people he kills nor or we the only ones he threatens.

No matter what you want to say about Bin Laden, the man has a fiendish intelligence. Last night my friends and I were discussing the scenario where Bin Laden manages to escape Afghanistan, but not to Europe, but to somewhere in the Middle East. Now lets say he shows up in the custody of a government in say Sudan, Libya, or Iraq. How difficult would it be to get him out using diplomatic measures? and how long would those diplomatic measures take? How difficult would it be to keep an international coalition together to militarily extricate him? It poses quite a complicated scenario, and not altogether unlikely.

I guess you missed my one of my posts. The world fears Bush... they would hand him in regardless if it's right to do so or not. Plus, there's nothing that prevents Bin Ladden from receiving an unfair and partial trial in Britain (or anyother western country) so he could also be tried there.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
I guess you missed my one of my posts. The world fears Bush... they would hand him in regardless if it's right to do so or not. Plus, there's nothing that prevents Bin Ladden from receiving an unfair and partial trial in Britain (or anyother western country) so he could also be tried there.<hr></blockquote>

Bush doesn't have anymore power than Clinton did, or his father before him! Europe does not fear him. They don't think he's ready to roll into their countries?!?!? Is your point the only reason most of the world supports the actions in Afghanistan because they "fear" Bush? There are those who attack America that should not fear Bush, but US. He's the leader of the nation, but to imply he runs it with an iron hand to serve his own end isn't realistic.


There is nothing wrong with Bin Laden being tried in Berlin, or even Amsterdam, as long as it's an international trial. I don't want him tried in the US.

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


Bush doesn't have anymore power than Clinton did, or his father before him! Europe does not fear him. They don't think he's ready to roll into their countries?!?!? Is your point the only reason most of the world supports the actions in Afghanistan because they "fear" Bush? There are those who attack America that should not fear Bush, but US. He's the leader of the nation, but to imply he runs it with an iron hand to serve his own end isn't realistic.


There is nothing wrong with Bin Laden being tried in Berlin, or even Amsterdam, as long as it's an international trial. I don't want him tried in the US.<hr></blockquote>

Ronn, I could respond with an analogy to recent history that would upset MANY just to prove my point... so, rather than starting a big war of words, I'll just say that you're right, he doesn't rule with an iron hand... I'm just saying the guy is like a black hole wether you want to get close or get away, you'll eventually be sucked in and be destroyed! One thing I can say for Bush Jr is that he was intelligent enough to surround himself with intelligent advisors!

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! But let's let the public to their delusions of effectiveness!

<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!

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! But let's let the public to their delusions of effectiveness!<hr></blockquote>

A trial probably would be a disaster. I never said I want one, but if it comes to that I don't want it here for the reasons you mention.

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.

Okay...here is my take on trials and such. I feel that he (Osama Bin Laden) should be executed. (alot) I felt the same way about the Nuremberg trial too. I look at trials for people who commit crimes against humanity as rubbing salt in society's wounds.

Regarding asylum in an European country, I would be quite upset if I knew that he could sucessfully do that. His organization did not just do a crime against the U.S. I call it a crime against humanity not because I give into jingoistic sayings. I literally believe that what happened on September 11th affected many more people than just the U.S.

<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>

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.

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



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) ;)<hr></blockquote>

I thought everyone had the right to a fair trial under article 10 of the Universal declaration of human rights, indeed fair trials are just the sort of thing we are supposed to be defending with our war on terrorism. Summary executions makes terorrists of us, and of course Hitler deserved a fair trial as that would differentiate us from dictators and tyrants.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]</p>

Keep in mind, people who keep fighting are legitimate targets and can be killed. You don't have to figure out a way to capture an enemy who is actively shooting at you, you can shoot back with the intent to kill, not wound.

The goal in fighting a war is not to capture the enemy, but to stop them with the use of force up to and including killing them. If that enemy surrenders then it is wrong to kill him, but it always amazes me that the agressors seem to have more rights than the victims. I guess the victims don't need rights anymore because they're dead. :(

A few interesting points I saw on the History Channel. A paratrooper should not be shot at until he lands, but there is no rule against a paratrooper shooting on his way down. Unarmed combatants cannot be shot, so a man could unload his machine gun on his enemy but would be protected from counter-fire once his ammo is depleted.

We won't have to worry about that with Osama since he's sworn not to be taken alive.

there are many treaties and such about what are legit targets and what sort of ammunition not to use. but most of the time they are ignored or obeyed whenever it is convenient. anyway capturing osama bin laden and bringing him to trial would be a triumph for the coalition, so why don't these people who say "we must expect some casulties, this is a war, some soldiers will die etc etc" put their money where their mouth is and go and capture him alive even if it costs a few lives?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
there are many treaties and such about what are legit targets and what sort of ammunition not to use. but most of the time they are ignored or obeyed whenever it is convenient. anyway capturing osama bin laden and bringing him to trial would be a triumph for the coalition, so why don't these people who say "we must expect some casulties, this is a war, some soldiers will die etc etc" put their money where their mouth is and go and capture him alive even if it costs a few lives?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]<hr></blockquote>

Put our money where our mouth is? Will the operation be more credible if American's start dying in big numbers? Is that why people are against this because not enough American's have died?

There is no reason to send in large numbers of standard ground troops, and if we do, it won't be to hunt down one man. Not using the weapons at your disposal would be ridiculous. American's have died and will die. To imply our shoulders are more important than civilians because we use technology to reduce casualties is grossly unfair.

Maybe enough Americans will die before this is over with to make everyone happy.

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


Put our money where our mouth is? Will the operation be more credible if American's start dying in big numbers? Is that why people are against this because not enough American's have died?

There is no reason to send in large numbers of standard ground troops, and if we do, it won't be to hunt down one man. Not using the weapons at your disposal would be ridiculous. American's have died and will die. To imply our shoulders are more important than civilians because we use technology to reduce casualties is grossly unfair.

Maybe enough Americans will die before this is over with to make everyone happy.<hr></blockquote>

Ronn, calm down, people are not against this because not enough Americans have died. People are against it for various reasons ranging from "there's a less costly way to get to him than to kill the civilians on the ground" to "this is a totally stupid course of action because it really goes against the best interest of the State".

Yes, American men of arms will unfortunately die. That's the way it is. But, if you ask me, it's a cowards attitude to simply rely on technology that kills civilian (which are off limit in war) when the end objective could be attained at no loss to the civilian population.

The aim of war, I know, is not to die for you country but to make the other bastard die for his. However, this does not extend to the population whatever the reason or the excuse might be!

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


Ronn, calm down, people are not against this because not enough Americans have died. People are against it for various reasons ranging from "there's a less costly way to get to him than to kill the civilians on the ground" to "this is a totally stupid course of action because it really goes against the best interest of the State".

Yes, American men of arms will unfortunately die. That's the way it is. But, if you ask me, it's a cowards attitude to simply rely on technology that kills civilian (which are off limit in war) when the end objective could be attained at no loss to the civilian population.

The aim of war, I know, is not to die for you country but to make the other bastard die for his. However, this does not extend to the population whatever the reason or the excuse might be!<hr></blockquote>

I'm calm, but the posts regarding "put you money where your mouth is", and "it's the cowards way" are a bit much.

Everyone says this could have ended without the loss of civilian life, but after 0930 September 11th, there were nearly 5,000 international civilians dead, thus eliminating the possibility.

Do you think less civilians would have died, if we dropped half a million troops in country with no bombing? The number of US dead would increase well beyond civilian casualties, would we be brave then?

The bombing campaign has been effective at it's goals and the civilian casualties were kept to a minimum. No they weren't eliminated, but when someone comes up with a method for war without civilian deaths we'll use it.

How could the end result have been achieved without a single civilian death in Afghanistan? Negotiation with the Taliban? Beyond the fact that they inititially said he couldn't have done it because they'd been monitering him, and he then admitted it. Did you read the post where they promise to massacre the civilian population in the last of their cities if the NA moves in?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

I raise this point by Barry the Spout..
Since Osama has sworn to kill himself or fight to the death(far more likely), what then?
What shall the free world do with the dead body of a mass murderer?

He will die sometime, but what are we going to do then? I cant remember who it was that mentioned rubbing salt into the wound but are we going to let the healing process begin as we rightly should? Or will be hang him up like some sort of morbid trophy? Would that make anyone feel better? How far would we have to fall to get our petty revenge? We've bombed the heck out of the Taliban, and I'm only thinking people arent satisfied yet because we havent seen the death toll. We've gotten what we wanted, or we will soon. We've got to remember that this is a war of principle as much as anything else! What good would we have accomplished with the lives of all the people who have died in these events if we betray that which we entered the fight in the first place? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seriously taken Skunk's unfortunate experience into the equation! I stand by Skunk's viewpoint and I agree with him! A war of ideas cannot be won with guns and bullets! What if we captured Osama? What would we gain by killing him? What would we gain by making him our largest advocate for peace and freedom(impossible as that might sound)? Paul was the most ferverent persecuter of Christianity before he became one of its most faithful! Too many people have died so that one man can die in chains. Even more will die so that we can kill others like him. A single man should not be able to demand so many lives! But if we took away their fire, if we took away his spirit and broke his will, wiped out his memory except in the history books and destroyed his ideas, we would have truely won.
We've seen the fall of many an-impossible enemy, the Communists and the IRA being the most prominent. We didnt win by killing them all. We won by making them admit defeat.

Has anyone seen Swordfish? An interesting show with an interesting take on terrorism, especially after the Sept 11th attacks. It almost seems like a viable future.

I'm sorry if I've cluttered up the thread with my rant among other serious discussions..

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lifetime:
I raise this point by Barry the Spout..
Since Osama has sworn to kill himself or fight to the death(far more likely), what then?
What shall the free world do with the dead body of a mass murderer?

He will die sometime, but what are we going to do then? I cant remember who it was that mentioned rubbing salt into the wound but are we going to let the healing process begin as we rightly should? Or will be hang him up like some sort of morbid trophy? Would that make anyone feel better? How far would we have to fall to get our petty revenge? We've bombed the heck out of the Taliban, and I'm only thinking people arent satisfied yet because we havent seen the death toll. We've gotten what we wanted, or we will soon. We've got to remember that this is a war of principle as much as anything else! What good would we have accomplished with the lives of all the people who have died in these events if we betray that which we entered the fight in the first place? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seriously taken Skunk's unfortunate experience into the equation! I stand by Skunk's viewpoint and I agree with him! A war of ideas cannot be won with guns and bullets! What if we captured Osama? What would we gain by killing him? What would we gain by making him our largest advocate for peace and freedom(impossible as that might sound)? Paul was the most ferverent persecuter of Christianity before he became one of its most faithful! Too many people have died so that one man can die in chains. Even more will die so that we can kill others like him. A single man should not be able to demand so many lives! But if we took away their fire, if we took away his spirit and broke his will, wiped out his memory except in the history books and destroyed his ideas, we would have truely won.
We've seen the fall of many an-impossible enemy, the Communists and the IRA being the most prominent. We didnt win by killing them all. We won by making them admit defeat.

Has anyone seen Swordfish? An interesting show with an interesting take on terrorism, especially after the Sept 11th attacks. It almost seems like a viable future.

I'm sorry if I've cluttered up the thread with my rant among other serious discussions..<hr></blockquote>

This effort is not about the death of one man and never has been. Everyone involved realizes this is bigger than one man. One man didn't do these things, but his network of terrorists did. I don't care if they kill him or not, as long they remove his ability to act.

It is a time for healing. We must repair relations in the Middle East, but even those nations admit this is a danger to them and must be stopped. No rubbing of salt into the wounds is necessary.

Hopefully, the UN will be able to oversee the establishment of a government in Afghanistan that is for the Afghan people and not the leadership. They are getting more aid into the country now than ever before and believe they will be able to fed all the refuges. Also with the fall back of the Taliban, the number of refuges is almost back to it's pre bombing level as people return home. Now those who were refuges because of the Taliban itself can be cared for by relief workers without the fear of being "detained".

Maybe the appeal of Osama can be removed, and we must work toward that goal in the region, but we can't afford to wait while doing nothing to defend ourselves. Terrorists' abilities to act on a global scale must be removed.

I understand your point about Paul, but he didn't change because of men and ideas, he changed because God "showed him the light"(quite literally). ;)

No clutter at all, and it wasn't a [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] , but instead, clearly hopeful thoughts.

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


I'm calm, but your posts regarding "put you money where your mouth is", and "it's the cowards way" are a bit much.

Everyone says this could have ended without the loss of civilian life, but after 0930 September 11th, there were nearly 5,000 international civilians dead, thus eliminating the possibility.

Do you think less civilians would have died, if we dropped half a million troops in country with no bombing? The number of US dead would increase well beyond civilian casualties, would we be brave then?

The bombing campaign has been effective at it's goals and the civilian casualties were kept to a minimum. No they weren't eliminated, but when someone comes up with a method for war without civilian deaths we'll use it.

How could the end result have been achieved without a single civilian death in Afghanistan? Negotiation with the Taliban? Beyond the fact that they inititially said he couldn't have done it because they'd been monitering him, and he then admitted it. Did you read the post where they promise to massacre the civilian population in the last of their cities if the NA moves in?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

Sorry Ronn but I only made one of those comments... and I still stand by it. I'm not proud of the way my nation is getting involved in this mess. My country is a coward for taking the path the most travel and failing to act in an honorable way. How our leaders say that they act in righteousness is beyond me. The fact remains that if our leaders would have done their jobs years back, those terrorist attacks probably would not have happened. I said it before and I'll say it again: "people in office don't care about making the though decisions that are bad in the view of the people but that are good for them and for a nation. They are more preocupied about getting reelected!".

Yes, those attacks could have been averted. The only problem is that the governements that we put in place were not ready to do what needed to be done to ensure our security. Instead, they kept feeding us that bullshit that the world was pink and beautiful. Now, they are putting the blame on others when they share a very important part of responsibility for the 9-11 attacks.

Has the campaing against Afghanistan been effective? I'll guess will only know if there is another terrorist strike against the us and by the magnitude of that strike should it ever come. If there's no future strike or if the strikes are minute attacks then yes, I will conceide that the military campaign was effective. However, should another 9-11 happen or something similar to it done by Al-Queada or another terrorist group affiliated to them, I guess I'd be quite right into saying that Bush was wrong and I was partly right (I say partly because we didn't try my course of action).

It's funny that Westerners think that it's cowardice to kill civilians in an attack aimed at a symbol of capitalism but that it's perfectly acceptable to kill Afghans in a strike to remove the Talibans. It's the same thing: people that shouldn't have died are now dead! To claim that one is cowardice and the other is just normal colateral damage is nothing more than hypocrassy!

About the Talibans shoothing the civilians, yes, I did read the posts. Now, I'll ask would this have happened if we just went after the terrorists and let the Talibans and the NA battle it out by themselves. I'm not saying that the Talibans are "nice guys". By any standard they are monsters... but then again so are the NA members!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
Sorry Ronn but I only made one of those comments... and I still stand by it.

It's funny that Westerners think that it's cowardice to kill civilians in an attack aimed at a symbol of capitalism but that it's perfectly acceptable to kill Afghans in a strike to remove the Talibans. It's the same thing: people that shouldn't have died are now dead! To claim that one is cowardice and the other is just normal colateral damage is nothing more than hypocrassy!<hr></blockquote>

My post should have said "the posts" not "your posts". (I've edited) [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

About collateral damage, you and I have been "around and around" with this one.

The difference is intent. Purposely targeting and killing civilians is completely different from their accidental deaths in combat. Completely, totally, and absolutely different. You are a sensible ( at least for the most part ;) ),educated man, and you know the difference, whether or not you admit it.

There is no such thing as "just normal collateral damage". Collateral damage is not a term meant to dehumanize the loss of innocents, it's just simpler to say than "non-targets hit or killed, accidentally, while aiming for valid military targets". In the same sense that "targets" is simpler to say than "people, or things, we are are aiming military force at".

The definition of collateral damage doesn't apply to September 11th, while it does apply to innocent Afghan civilians killed in the 6 weeks of attacks.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>