It doesn't bother me that Osama didn't get a trial....

[BooScout]

Hindsight is 20/20. We weren't there so how can we make an informed decision that it was wrong not to capture and try Bin Laden?

Much to do has been made of the fact that Osama was unarmed. But what those arguing for a trial most seem to ignore is that there were guns (including an AK47) within just a few feet of Osama. Others in the compound were and had been shooting at the Seals. For 40 minutes they had been having a firefight with others in the compound.It was dark and they were going after the MOST WANTED Terrorist in the world who has bragged countless times on video and audio tapes that he was responsible for killing thousands of Americans and other westerners. This man was considered to be the most dangerous person in the world.

I have also heard much criticism that Osama was shot in front of his teenage daughter. I'm not a heartless person, but it seems to me that if you are a good father, you would want to protect your children at all costs....so why on earth would the most wanted person in the world, who had to know it was a very good possibility that those hunting you would one day find you........why, why, why would you surround yourself with women and children? Particularily members of your own family who one would think you would want to protect?

Osama was the leader of a Worldwide Terrorist Army that we have been at war with for 10 years. In the heat of battle, I don't expect our soldiers to stop and read our enemy their rights.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

1. I think he'd already pleaded guilty on numerous occasions.

With that in mind, only sentencing was required and the sentence most certainly fit the crime.

[virgogal]

2. Well it does bother me.Diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. We could have tried Bin Laden for the 1998 embassy bombings, but not 9/11

The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. That's why Bin Laden's FBI poster has no mention of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. No evidence exists connecting him to the hijackers.

[gratuitous]

7. Evidence, schmevidence!

"Everybody" knows he was guilty, so that's the end of it. And when "everybody" knows something, there's just no point in belaboring things, is there? Like in 2004, when Boston trailed New York three games to none in the American League Championship series. It was hardly worth going through the motions because "everybody" said that the Yankees had that series all wrapped up and were headed to the World Series and another inexorable march to yet another World Championship.

Say, how did that all come out, anyway?

[leveymg]

4. They followed orders.

Challenge not their judgment, but their orders. They do what we train them to do.

[sabrina 1]

5. It bothers me that WE didn't get a trial.n/t

[blondeatlast]

9. THAT should be a subject line of it's own OP. nt

[liberal N proud]

6. Can you imagine the uproar over that trial

After the outrage that they were going to try some of the getmo prisoners in New York. How could anyone expect to find a place to try such a high profile terrorist?


No city state or country would want to take the trial.

[BooScout]

8. Not only that........

Does anyone actually think they could really find an impartial jury any where on earth regarding this?

[sabrina 1]

11. I can, because it happened before. The trial of the blind Sheik Rahman

who attempted to topple the WTC in 1993 was held in NYC. This nonsense that we 'can't hold trials anymore because can you imagine how upset a bunch of terrorists might be, is just sad. Our country and our judicial system is now being dictated by a small bunch of radical extremists who have little influence anywhere in the world, except here, the 'home of the brave'!

There were seven years of terrorist trials after the 1993 bombings. Any terrorist who might have entertained the idea of disrupting those trials, had to forget about it, because we CAN hold trials.

[ixion]

10. Your disdain for the Rule of Law is duly noted

the Police State thanks you for your support.

[BooScout]

12. soooo....

You can say with certainty that Osama was not going for the AK-47 assault rifle or the Makarov semi-automatic pistol that were just a foot or two away from him? You were there then and know for sure that the Navy Seals did not fear for their own safety? I don't disdain the Rule of Law........I just suspect that the Law of War and what was happening in that compound may somewhat muddy the waters as to whether or not the Rule of Law even came into play.

[ixion]

13. Here's my problem with all this:

Up until Bush declared a faux 'war' on terror, terrorism was treats as a criminal offense. Now, however, the military is engaged in an endless non-declared, quasi 'war' against a concept. So, yeah, I'm against using the military to chase 'terrorists' endlessly. There was a reason it was treated as a criminal issue, and removing that important barrier with it's checks and balances opened a Pandora's Box that will not easily close. It's the same reason I've always been opposed to quasi 'wars' of abstraction (E.g. 'terror' and 'drugs') because they use these glorified marketing campaigns to destroy the Constitution, Bill of Rights and our Civil Liberties, to boot. So when you cheer for stuff like this, you're supporting the belief in Pax Americana and Endless War.

[DirkGently]

14. Excellent.