Michael Moore: "Why We Put Those Like Bin Laden On Trial"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-we-put

May 6th, 2011 6:39 PM

Why We Put Those Like Bin Laden on Trial

By Michael Moore

We put those who do evil things on trial not so much for them (though we do do it for them because, unlike their view of us, we see them as human), but we do it for ourselves. We do it because we are civilized, we are a free people, we believe that everyone has a right to their day in court, even the worst persons. We believe in the rule of law even if they don't. That makes us strong, stronger than them, and we will defeat their evil through our open and just society. If we behave like them, we will eventually become them. I do not believe in an eye for an eye. I think Jesus Christ said something about how he was here on earth to change that, to tell us to love our enemies. That's a tough thing to live by. The Nazis started a world war in which some 40+ million died. Yet we gave them their day in court, just to show them that WE ARE NOT LIKE YOU. And to show the world the evil deeds they did. Unfortunately, to put bin Laden on trial would have been problematic because he used to "work" for us in the 1980s when we trained, armed and funded his rebels in Afghanistan. Too much might come out about this Frankenstein we created -- and who would then come back 20 years later to murder 3,000 of our citizens.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Michael Moore Tweets on Death of Osama bin Laden:

- snip -

"I understand the sentiment because we all want OBL gone. But these statements are an admission that our great American Experiment is dead."

"The terrorists win when we are willing to scrap our system of justice and do it their way: "Just kill 'em!""

"The terrorists win when we have turned into a nation of wusses who are afraid to hold a trial because "they might hurt us!""

"The terrorists win when we elevate them to nation status and call it a "war" and call them "the enemy.""

MORE

[Inspired]

1. Too much energy on a worthless piece of shit....imo. eom

[sabrina 1]

4. Except it isn't about the worthless pos, it's about us.

Worthless pos get trials every day in this country, pedophiles, mass murderers, child killers, baby torturers, the list is long. Sometimes we know for sure they are guilty, but still he give them their day in court and even the victims' loved ones generally would not have it any other way.

Why do we do this when we could just take them out in the back of the jail and blow them away?

As MM says, because were are not them. We are civilized.

Well, we thought we were I should say.

I agree with MM. It's sad to see so many people yelling 'just shoot the bastard, we don't need no trials'.

[Inspired]

5. Sorry but I'm saving my pearl clutching for something more worthy than OBL.

I'm glad they killed the SOB. And yes, I am better than them. And very civilized, thank you very much.

[sabrina 1]

8. Well, that's what they say too. MM IS clutching his pearls

for something more worthy than OBL. I'm surprised you can't see that. OBL is more important than our Constitution? Not to me, and I'm glad to see, not to Michael Moore.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Not clutching pearls -- more like pearls before swine.

Moore has the pearls but the porcine just don't have the capacity to understand their value.

[krabigirl]

9. If we stay in the ME, we will create a zillion more OBLs.

[ProSense]

2. "Why We Put Those Like Bin Laden on Trial"

Does Moore know that bin Laden is dead?

"I do not believe in an eye for an eye. I think Jesus Christ said something "

Moore on CNN

<...>

MOORE: I'm pleased that he will no longer be around to do any harm to anybody. The world is a better place without him. To be -- to celebrate someone's death, I think that's goes a step further than my own -- it's not the way I was raised. I was raised in an Irish Catholic home.

I believe in those principles that I was raised with. I hear a lot of people often say, what would Jesus do? I don't think Jesus would go down to Ground Zero like a lot of people did on that -- on Sunday night with champagne bottles and pop corks and have a party.

<...>

MOORE: No, no. They killed him. But what I'm saying is they didn't kill because there was some kind of firefight or something going on. They went there with the intention to kill him. That's an execution and -- or an assassination, whatever you want to call it.

And I think -- I think, look, like I said, I'm glad he's gone. But I just feel something has -- we've lost something of our soul here in this country. And maybe I'm just an old school American who believes in our American judicial system. Something that separates us from other parts, other countries where we say everybody has their day in court no matter how bad of a person, no matter what piece of scum they are, they have a right to a trial.

And this man was a mass murderer. He was responsible for the deaths, at least in this country, of nearly 3,000 people. And you know after World War II, we just didn't go in and put a bullet to the head of all the top Nazis. We put them on trial. We took them in Nuremberg and we put them on trial, and we said, no, this is important for the world to see these criminals and it's important for history to have a record of what they did.

<...>

He doesn't beliebe in an "an eye for an eye," but he's "glad he's gone"? Why?

Reuters: Michael Moore not happy about bin Laden "execution"

He's not making much sense!

[foxtrot]

12. His analogy to the Nazis is total BS. The allies defeated the

Nazis, Germany surrendered, the war was brought to a conclusion and their leader put a bullet through his own head and we tried some of the remaining suspects. The conflict with Al-Quadia is on going, we are still working to eliminate them.

[dkf]

3. If Pakistan had turned him over to us we would have done just that.

But without that, it would have endangered our guys lives and I don't think it is worth it.

[Bonobo]

6. He is 100% right and it is sad that we need this to be repeated.

Even sadder that we have changed so much that even Democrats largely disagree.

Read his points again and see if you can get past the reptile part of the brain that demands revenge against a sub-human monster.
--------------

"The terrorists win when we elevate them to nation status and call it a "war" and call them "the enemy.""

"The terrorists win when we are willing to scrap our system of justice and do it their way: "Just kill 'em!""

[mochajava666]

76. Well said

[NYC Liberal]

7. The terrorists win when Osama bin Laden still alive to plot and plan attacks

against innocent people.

[TNLib]

10. Moore's taking the high road and I respect him for that and we need to be reminded of our principles

Because we have strayed and we have been straying from those principles since 911.

But I honestly think this was the best outcome possible and I think Obama made the right call. Now that he is dead maybe our country can start the healing process and repair the damage that has been done to the American psyche and our civil liberties.

[Obamanaut]

11. A trial would have been a waste of time, money, and energy. nt

[Electric Monk]

13. As compared to what, the war in Iraq?

Peanuts, relatively.

[Obamanaut]

14. The time, money, and energy would cost much more than a couple

of bullets.

A penny saved, and all that.

[sabrina 1]

18. So, did the Clinton administration waste time and money

on the trial of the blind Sheik Rahman who bombed the WTC in 1993?

Should he have just sent in a hit squad and blown that terrorist to pieces instead? I mean we USED to believe in trials, when did this change? Can you explain that to me??

You know that Sheik Rahman was probably far more popular back then in the ME, than OBL is now? Yet, we managed to hold those trials and keep our Consitution intact. But you're saying our country no longer needs to worry about that 'piece of paper', which is what Bush said. So, was Bush right after all? And we were all wrong?

[ProSense]

24. Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden

Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden

NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.

<...>

Sometimes they're captured and sometimes they're killed. In bin Laden's case, appropriate.

[sabrina 1]

25. No, he was right to hold trials for the WTC bombers

he was wrong to try to out-kill the Republicans just because they were calling him names.

Sometimes people do the right thing, and sometimes they don't. At least he got it right on the 1993 bombings. We learned so much from those trials, so much that the Clinton Admin. was able to prevent many, many planned terror attacks, and enough that had he wanted to, George Bush could have stopped 9/11.

[ProSense]

28. Yes, he was right to hold trials

and there are trials ongoing. Still, sometimes they're captured and sometimes they're killed.

How does one claim to be glad a person is dead, that the world is better off without them, while being sanctimonious about a trial? Why is Moore glad bin Laden is dead?

Guilty eneny combatant is dead, good riddance.

[Capitalocracy]

30. I'm glad he's dead...

but I would have preferred to see him on trial.

In other words, I'm glad he's been caught. He's dead, and I'm not sad about that at all, in any way. But there's a principle here... if we had the chance to take him alive, a trial is an important step in fighting an ideology.

[ProSense]

31. Hmmmm?

I'm glad he's dead... but I would have preferred to see him on trial.

In other words, I'm glad he's been caught. He's dead, and I'm not sad about that at all, in any way. But there's a principle here... if we had the chance to take him alive, a trial is an important step in fighting an ideology.

You're glad a man who deserved a trial is dead? Isn't the purpose of a trial innocent until proven guilty?

What's the principle here: being glad a possibly innocent man is dead?

Osama bin Laden wasn't a common criminal. He was the head of a terrorist organization actively carrying out attacks on people around the world.

[Capitalocracy]

35. Look, if they went in to capture him and he fought back and they killed him

I would have no problem.

If they went in having already decided that it was not safe to try to capture him, so they went in for a kill, I would also be fine with that. Awesome. Take him out.

But they go in and kill him, say he was armed and shooting back at them, then change their story... First of all, they're lying to us, that's not a good thing. Second, if they believed it was safe to try to capture him and decided to kill him to avoid the hassle of a trial, that is wrong.

So yes, I can be glad he's dead and still ask questions that I think are important about how this went down.

[ProSense]

38. So

you're arguing about the corrections to the initial report, not the principle?

[Capitalocracy]

47. Where did the initial report come from?

If you don't know the details, say so, don't make stuff up. Somebody's lying here.

And my problem isn't with the military deciding it's not safe to try to capture him. Getting Osama bin Laden is a dead or alive scenario, and I never had a problem with that. But the information we have now points to the possibility that they decided to kill him out of political convenience to avoid a trial, and actually believed that operationally, it WAS safe to try to capture him, just not EASY politically.

And I'm not claiming to know what really happened in the planning stage. But there's a very important distinction between deciding it's not safe to attempt to capture him and deciding it's not convenient.

I don't ask that they risk the lives of any of the special forces units who went in after him to create the possibility of a trial. I'm just asking they capture criminals if possible, rather than deciding that it's easier to kill them than to hold them accountable in court. And I didn't even want a trial for OBL's sake, I'm pretty sure he did it, but rather to show that we're better, to show that we believe in the rule of law, and to investigate, dissect, and shed light on how Osama bin Laden thought and acted, and prove to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that he was a criminal and not a martyr or a messiah.

[sabrina 1]

33. Wow! So you too have adapted the Bush

fake 'enemy combatant' terminology, made up in an attempt to avoid the adhering to the Geneva Conventions. I remember not so long ago when not one single person on a Democratcic forum would have fallen for that fake designation. A designation that was meant to lead to the belief that those given the title were not human, and therefore could be tortured or killed without any due process. A direct violation of Common Art. 111 of the Geneva Conventions.

All I can say is that I never, ever thought I would see the day when that vile criminal terminology would be used on a democratic board to defend avoiding the law. And now, in this thread alone, I have seen it twice.

As Col. Wilkerson said yesterday, the Bush War Criminals will face justice even if it is the fact, as is already the case, where they cannot travel outside this country. That the only two countries they can go to are Saudi Arabia and Israel.

But to see democrats now adapting Bush's war criminal propaganda to defend throwing out all of our laws?

We who once had faith that Democrats would restore the rule of law, have a great deal to think about now.

[ProSense]

37. Wow

"enemy combatant," "enemy of the state," "enemy," who gives a shit? He targeted the U.S. and now he's dead.

"But to see democrats now adapting Bush's war criminal propaganda to defend throwing out all of our laws?

We who once had faith that Democrats would restore the rule of law, have a great deal to think about now."

Wow, the self-righteousness is thick, even moreso than the attempts to conflate.

[sabrina 1]

46. We have a Constitution and we are signatories to the Geneva

Conventions. Show me where in any of those laws, laws that differentiate US from THEM, execution before trial is permitted?

Wow! Indeed ~

[ProSense]

50. As for this claim from

your previous comment:

"adapted the Bush fake 'enemy combatant' terminology, made up in an attempt"

Bush did not invent the term "enemy combatant" (PDF, page 32).

[sabrina 1]

52. Bush was responsible for the attempt to use that label

to attempt to get around the Geneva Conventions requirement that no matter who the detainees were, no matter what crimes they may have committed, they were to be treated humanely. He did not plan on humanely treating detainees, innocent or guilty. And not one single person I have known who called themselves a Democrat were ever fooled by his and his team of war criminals' transparent attemts to get around those laws.

[ProSense]

53. Hmmm?

"Bush was responsible for the attempt to use that label to attempt to get around the Geneva Conventions requirement that no matter who the detainees were, no matter what crimes they may have committed, they were to be treated humanely. He did not plan on humanely treating detainees, innocent or guilty. "

When was bin Laden a detainee?

Still, Bush didn't invent the term as you claimed, and the use of it to describe bin Laden has nothing to do with detainee treatment.

[sabrina 1]

56. So, are you saying that you agree with the Bush administration's

interpretation of our laws? You appear to be trying to defend them, unless I'm misunderstanding, which I sincerely hope I am.

[ProSense]

60. No

you're saying that and trying to conflate every issue under the sun to the killing of bin Laden.

He was not a detainee. No one is advocating the U.S. abandon its laws. No is advocating that trials are no longer needed.

Michael Moore is glad bin Laden is gone, as are most Americans.

[sabrina 1]

63. Now you are changing the argument. The issue is

that if it is possible to take someone into custody, that is what should be done. We are not a third world dictatorship where we just shoot people without due process.

If it was possible to take OBL into custody, something we do not know the facts about, then that is what should have been done according to our laws. There is no argument about that. The law is clear. The oaths taken by the military make clear what their primary duty is.

Until we know the circumstances of OBL's death, we cannot say whether or not the oaths taken were upheld in accordance with our laws.

[ProSense]

66. No, the subject wasn't changed

Like Michael Moore, most Americans are glad bin Laden is gone.

That's the issue.

What you're now claiming is all the righteous indignation about bin Laden's killing was premature because the facts that would justify such outrage are not all known.

There are enough facts to know that bin Laden was a most wanted terrorist, he was pursued by the U.S. and killed.

[sabrina 1]

67. Most Americans and in fact most of the world assumed he was

already dead. He is simply not that important to the rest of the world. They have their own problems and this country lost any sympathy it had long ago when it started, and continues, to kill innocent people for oil, using 9/11 as an excuse. Which has grown old now in most parts of the world.

Frankly when you travel these days no one wants to hear the words '9/11' anymore. We have lost our moral authority since the slaughter and abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.

But that's why we elected Democrats, to try to restore respect for this country. Instead, the world now sees that it was not just Bush, that it is America, Americans who think it's okay to go around killing people with drones, eg, invading the airspace of sovereign nations to perhaps, (and we will have to wait for more information on this, but it WILL be demanded), extra-judiciously execute an 'accused', please note the word 'accused', terrorist. IF this was the case, then the US has committed a crime. Hopefully it was not.

It's very simple. We have laws, all we need to do is abide by them. You appear to be trying to make excuses just in case we did not. I apply the same standards to everyone. I would like to think our Constitution is not being violated as it was under Bush. Like Michael Moore, I have more hope of that under this president than under Bush. We will see, but foremost and of the utmost importance, will always be whether or not the law was observed. I'm sorry you do not agree with that.

[ProSense]

69. Really?

"Most Americans and in fact most of the world assumed he was already dead. He is simply not that important to the rest of the world. They have their own problems and this country lost any sympathy it had long ago when it started, and continues, to kill innocent people for oil, using 9/11 as an excuse. Which has grown old now in most parts of the world.

Frankly when you travel these days no one wants to hear the words '9/11' anymore. "

Apparently, he wasn't dead, and now most people are glad that he is.

[sabrina 1]

71. As I said, most people thought he was dead anyhow.

So most people in the world, dealing with their own problems, the ME, N. Africa, Latin America, as many analysts have pointed out since this news came out, OBL was old news, people are probably glad he is dead, but they already experienced that 'gladness'. What people WILL be glad about is if his, now confirmed death ends the wars and the useless, destructive so-called 'war on terror' that has taken hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

People will definitely dance in the streets when the US gets its troops out of other people's countries, now that the mission has been accomplished.

[BzaDem]

79. That is completely bogus and the Geneva conventions say NO SUCH THING. It is absolutely false that

the Geneva conventions require that a declared combatant be taken into custody in all possible cases. If you think otherwise (incorrectly), please point out the specific section of the Geneva convention that creates such an absurd requirement.

The Geneva conventions set certain standards for the treatment of captured detainees and those who either did not take part in hostilities (such as civilians), or who have ceased taking part in hostilities (such as former soldiers who are now civilians). They do NOT in any way require capture as opposed to kill for any declared combatant taking part in hostilities. Think about how absurd it would be if the opposite were the case: it would mean a soldier could not fire at a line of uniformed enemy soldiers until it made a separate calculation for each enemy soldier in the line that it was not possible to capture them. Your interpretation would be a complete unworkable rewrite of decades if not centuries of the laws of war. It bears no resemblance with the actual current or past laws of war.

The truth is that if a declared combatant wants to be taken alive, he has to surrender. The burden is on him. It is not on the soldier -- a soldier has the absolute legal right to shoot on site any declared combatant (unarmed or armed, imminent threat or no threat), unless the declared combatant affirmatively surrenders (hands up/white flag/etc). It is the complete opposite of civilian law, where the police can only shoot if there is an imminent threat.

As for the phrase "enemy combatant," that has NOTHING to do with the kill vs. capture distinction. It only has to do with treatment once captured. Bush was incorrect in declaring that the Geneva conventions don't apply to captured terrorists (that's where "enemy combatant" came in), but NO ONE was ever asserting that the Geneva conventions required that we capture (as oppose to kill) a declared combatant in the absence of an active surrender. The conventions apply if the decision is to capture (or if the combatant takes himself out of the hostilities by affirmatively surrendering).

You are confusing your personal sensibilities with the actual law in question.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Sabrina 1, surely by now you understand that when John Yoo

called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint and obsolete,' he was correct? Silly Sabrina1, thinking that words and treaties mean anything. That's so Peace of Westphalia-ish (1648, end of 30 Years' War). Pfft!

[sabrina 1]

15. So, should we just do away with trials altogether then? They

all cost time, money and energy. And often the guilt of the accused is pretty obvious.

It WOULD save a lot of money, time and effort if we just shot them all. You know, the way people like Saddam did, and OBL, no trial, no charges, just blow them away.

Why do you think we don't do that?

[malaise]

16. I would have preferred a trial

and I remain conflicted for several reasons. I am glad he shut up the RETHUGS and I understand why people felt a cathartic moment when they heard he was dead despite not having been tried and sentenced.

[Kaleva]

17. We had to kill thousands of Nazis before a few of them got their day in court.

[EFerrari]

19. Thanks, Hissyspit.

[JoePhilly]

89. Bill Clinton fired cruise missles in an atttempt to kill OBL prior to 9/11.

So Bill is a war criminal, right?

[ErikJ]

20. "Enemy combatant"

Some govt official explained it on TV. He said that OBL was not a criminal he was an "enemy combatant" which legally gives them permission to kill on sight. And the Seal team thought he might have a bomb strapped to him so were given orders shoot to kill as soon as possible. The longer they were in the building the more chance the mission would be in danger from possible explosives.
Armchair hindsight gives us the leisure of what-ifs, but in real life they had to act very aggressively and fast.

[Capitalocracy]

22. Why didn't they just tell us that?

If they planned the operation saying it was necessary to shoot to kill because they were afraid they would use explosives, I would agree with that. But that's not what they said. Why?

I think the kill order was to avoid the hassle of a trial.

[sabrina 1]

27. Bullshit. Enemy combatant was a Bush administration made-up

term give to POWs or civilians taken into custody to try to avoid having to abide by the Geneva Conventions. It is SHAMEFUL if the Obama administration is continuing this vile policy which almost every legal expert on the face of the planet and human rights organization, has condemned.

I cannot believe, after all the years on THIS FORUM where we condemned that fake terminology to see anyone trying now to defend it. It cannot be defended. There is no such designation as an individual who has been deemed as less than human and therefore has no right to a trial. EXCEPT IN THE SICK MIND of George Bush/Cheney and his band of war criminals, who one day I sincerely hope, WILL be prosecuted.

I feel like crying to see that here on this board.

No wonder Sen. Byrd said 'I weep for my country'! :cry:

[Capitalocracy]

29. It upsets me too how many right-wing talking points have become gospel here this week.

Like that giving terrorists a trial just gives them "a platform". People here are repeating that Republican talking point.

[sabrina 1]

36. I know. I spend time on righgtwing boards and this week

sometimes I had to double check to make sure I am on the 'democratic' board here. How very, very sad to have to admit, that the 'left' or at least part of it, shares the same beliefs now as Bush supporters.

[Capitalocracy]

40. Maybe it really is all about teams.

I don't know if it's a Team Dem thing or a Team America thing, but I'm pretty near 100% certain that there are individuals who would have stood up for the rule of law a week ago willing to throw it out the window today.

The right-wing puts these talking points out there, and then an extraordinary situation like this one pops up and people sort of reset themselves and pull these things out from somewhere deep in their brains and find they justify the emotions they're feeling, then suddenly they become the truth. I hope these new ideals don't set in permanently.

[sabrina 1]

43. Well said.

Imho, though, if it were a team America thing, we would all be standing up for the Constitution.

[ErikJ]

41. Beliefs are all over the spectrum on both sides o n this one

Napolitano at Fox thinks it was a crime to kill OBL for example.
I'm a pragmatist and can see how the Seals had to do what they had to do or suffer death and mission failure.
The whole building could have blown apart at anytime. I wish they could have taken him out alive though.

[Capitalocracy]

48. I wonder if Napolitano would say the same thing if it were Bush

that caught him.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

[sabrina 1]

62. Yes, but I guess my problem is not with just this one incident.

Especially since we do not know much about it. My problem is that I have seen people state that we do not need trials for people like OBL, that we should just abandon the rule of law and shoot them, even if it were possible to take them into custody. And I believe that these statements are being made in the mistaken idea that we need to protect politicians and political parties first and foremost. This is what was wrong with Bush supporters, and the reason why we lost so many of our rights.

It becomes easier if we keep the laws in mind and forget the politics. And then go from there. I am saddened to see that for the sake of politics, people would happily throw away the US Constitution.

[ErikJ]

32. How about terrorist combatant?

Maybe their reasoning is that he was not a head of state or even a citizen of state so it's legally OK to kill him since he was guilty and a danger to national security the longer he lived.
But the other serious option was to BOMB the building which would have killed everybody and destroyed all the intelligence. The operation was at night and extremely risky so their mission was to get in and out as soon as possible. I would not have wanted to get anywhere near him knowing he could have set off a body bomb.

[sabrina 1]

51. We don't know what the circumstances were. But we

were told the mission was to 'capture or kill' OBL initially. Later we were told that the mission was to 'kill' only. But the issue isn't just about this one incident, it is about our laws, laws that make this country different from Bin Laden and terrorists in general. That is what makes a country civilized.

We have principles in this country. What I am seeing here is a defense of 'shoot him, he doesn't deserve a trial'. That should be anathema to anyone who loves this country. The notion that we should simply throw away all that makes this country different from THEM, that is the problem.

There is no room in the Geneva Conventions for designating any human being no matter how evil, a label that excludes them from the protections of those laws. This was never disputed on the left during the Bush administration.

Common Art. 111 of the Geneva Conventions makes it clear that all human beings taken into custody, regardless of labels, regardless of what crimes they may have committed, are to be treated humanely. The Bush administration attempted to get around those laws by thinking up labels, as if that could remove the elements that make a human being a human being. No one other than those who do not believe in the rule of law, ever bought their convoluted thinking. Or their made up labels.

[ErikJ]

54. Would you have wanted

a body bomb to go off as they approached and surrounded him to take him alive? That was a very high probability as I think he had a vow to never be taken alive.

[ErikJ]

57. Bottom line: OBL vow to not be taken alive

It would have been extremely foolish to wait even a second to kill OBL assuming OBL would not attempt to kill soldiers with guns or a body bomb if he vowed to be never taken alive.

[sabrina 1]

59. You know, this is not about OBL, or about just this one incident.

As I said, I do not, nor does anyone, know what the circumstances were. The issue is that today I have seen people defend NOT abiding by the rule of law even if it is possible to do so. Following the law is easy when there is nothing to worry about. The true test of our commitment to the principles we claim to uphold is when times are tough. And from what I have seen today, there are some people, on the left, who are willing to toss out all of our principles, everything that makes us different from THEM, in order to defend a political party, politician, whatever. And that is NOT something I ever expected to see on the left.

Yes, there is room for discussion on this particular incident. But there is NO room for discussion on protecting as much as possible, the principles which make this country what it is. The Constitution and all the International laws to which we have agreed to abide by are what our military swear to defend and protect.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. If there were a pantheon of DU heros, I would nominate you and

EFerrari to it forthwith.

Very eloquently put. Should be an OP all its own, imho.

Words cannot express my gratitude nor my admiration adequately.

You rock!

[coalition_unwilling]

58. "Since he was guilty" -- I think that phrase is part of the problem.

Brother, we are all guilty. Doesn't mean any of us should be executed without a trial.

[coalition_unwilling]

61. The most distressing part of reliance on extra-legal terminology like 'enemy combatant'

to cover their extra-legal execution is that Obama is a former Constitutional Law prof. Even if you dismiss Carney and Brennan as the dufuses they so manifestly are, one expects a little more from a former editor of the Harvard Law Review and Con Law prof.

I feel like a last refuge has been taken from me. If DU now embraces this rule by executive fiat, there really is no place left for me to turn. Not a good feeling.

[sabrina 1]

64. I agree. It's hard to believe that anyone on this board would

even use that despicable terminology in an attempt to do, as Bush did, attempt to excuse not following the law. As if mere words, a label, ever changed the law.

Don't feel bad, you are NOT alone, it's just that some people feel the need to defend politicians, even though they may not need defending, we don't know that yet, and are making an extra effort to do so when in fact it may not even be necessary. But what has been revealed is that some people even on the left are willing to abandon the principles that make this country what it is, for political purposes.

[coalition_unwilling]

68. I can't help feeling like Obama personally betrayed me and played

me for a chump. Not a good feeling. Ash in the mouth sort of thing.

[ErikJ]

65. Dont worry-I'm probably far left of you and most here.

I'm for nationalizing/socializing most everything, taxing the rich 90% and going totally solar and wind ASAP.

[felix_numinous]

85. +1 Thank you Sabrina!

your post speaks for me too! Apparently tribunals are just a quaint thing of the past.

[Hissyspit]

44. delete - dupe nt

[Hissyspit]

45. Bush Administration Terminology?

Really?

[quaker bill]

21. I have no problem opposing the death penalty

and do so consistently on a personal and religious basis. On the other hand, I cannot find a concern over this particular incident. The man abdjectly pleaded for the fate the Navy Seals delivered.

[Hissyspit]

42. Yes.

We gave bin Laden what he wanted. We've been doing it for over a decade now.

[Capitalocracy]

49. If one were daring enough,

one might even say he won...

[spin]

73. True, in the sense that we have lost many of our freedoms ...

and most of our privacy to this War on Terror.

If we continue at the same rate, no other countries will look up to us as a shining beacon of freedom.

[Capitalocracy]

74. Not to mention all the money we wasted

which was bin Laden's stated goal.

[spin]

78. Also true. However much of that was Bush the Junior's fault.

We had no reason to invade Iraq. Not only did we waste a lot of money there but we lost the lives of many of our soldiers and killed many Iraqis. We may well have created a large number of terrorists who will haunt us in the future and replace those we killed in Afghanistan .

[quaker bill]

81. a final time perhaps,

however, I still can't find a path to become concerned about this. Here, there, or elsewhere, the man was dead the moment we caught him, all we are considering is the process and timing to get to this result. I cannot find the time or energy to be concerned over the details.

[Hissyspit]

82. That is rationalization.

As I've told my students for years, "I can't MAKE you CARE about ANYTHING, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't."

[quaker bill]

84. It is not rationalization

The man was in fact dead the moment we caught him. We have only missed out on the show trial and media circus prior to his execution. Thinking otherwise is a delusion. There has been no other politically tenable answer to this question for nearly 10 years now. Perhaps you just wanted his execution a bit better decorated with some faux legal process. I am sure they would have put on a really good show before the inevitable. Personally, I am just as happy it is over.

[Capitalocracy]

23. K&R. nt

[cayanne]

26. He's where he should be

On the bottom of the ocean being eaten by crabs and other bottom feeders.

[gratuitous]

34. Well, "everybody" said he was guilty, so . . .

And tomorrow, "everybody" might decide someone else is guilty. I hope it's not me. I was rather fond of the Constitution while it was alive.

[eqfan592]

39. The guy confessed dozens of times to his crimes....

...and honestly, I would NOT ask any of our fighting men or women to put their lives even remotely at risk on the off chance that a self-confessed mass murderer wasn't actually going for any kind of weapon in a room that almost surely had several. Sorry, but folks need to get off their damned soapbox on this thing.

[gratuitous]

83. He did? When was that?

Because you'd think the FBI would have put it on his Wanted poster:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

Prolly just a typo though; certainly not worth worrying about taking a man's life because "almost surely" he could have gone for a weapon (if there was one) against a group of heavily armed killers SEALs. I suppose the same logic could apply to anyone sufficiently scared because a country might resort to using nuclear weapons against civilian populations. But then, there's only one country that's ever done that.

[coalition_unwilling]

75. Gratuitous, we are all guilty. That does not mean that we should

be executed without a trial.

I share your fondness for the Constitution. One of my ancestors on my father's side lost his life at Gettysburg in its defense. What a waste.

[MadBadger]

77. He wouldnt be put on trial. It would be military tribunal

[Faryn Balyncd]

80. K&R . . . . Thanks.

[Shagbark Hickory]

86. Moore is my guiding light. +! nt

[BernieSandersIsGod]

87. A Bin Laden trial would be a complete circus. NT

[girl gone mad]

88. Nice to see that cooler heads are starting to prevail.

I think history will reflect on this incident with significantly more ambiguity than has been demonstrated on DU over the past week.