bin Laden can appeal to U.S. courts

sfws09

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
87
http://http://www.examiner.com/a-1445814~Obama_advisers_say_bin_Laden_can_appeal_to_U_S__courts.html

Obama advisers say bin Laden can appeal to U.S. courts

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts, a privilege opposed by John McCain.

Responding to questions from The Examiner, Sen. John Kerry and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said bin Laden would benefit from last week's Supreme Court decision giving terrorism suspects habeas corpus, the right to appeal their military detention to civilian courts.

“If he were to be brought back,” Clarke said of bin Laden, “the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus.”

Kerry, who applauded the Supreme Court ruling, said it will be carried out by whichever candidate wins the presidency.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights,” he said. “If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights.”

Randy Scheunemann, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, said those rights should not be extended to bin Laden or the hundreds of terrorism suspects being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

“The individuals we hold at Guantanamo are very, very dangerous people,” Scheunemann said. “To give them full access to the federal courts and the criminal justice system is fraught with danger, moving forward, and likely to make America less safe, unlike Senator Obama's claim of supporting the decision that it made America safer.”

On Monday, Obama applauded the civilian prosecution of terrorists prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“In previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he told ABC. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

Obama said President Bush has relied too heavily on military prosecution of terrorists, which has “given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’”

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Obama wants “to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter, rather than a clear and present danger. Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security.”

The attack sounded familiar to Kerry, who was the Democratic presidential nominee four years ago.

“This is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004, and the record absolutely contradicts it,” Kerry told The Examiner. “Every Democrat voted to go to war and attack the Taliban and al Qaeda, the people who attacked us. That is not a [legalistic] approach.”


thoughts?
 
“The individuals we hold at Guantanamo are very, very dangerous people,” Scheunemann said. “To give them full access to the federal courts and the criminal justice system is fraught with danger, moving forward, and likely to make America less safe, unlike Senator Obama's claim of supporting the decision that it made America safer.”

Neocons, your rhetoric is tired and predictable.
 
It won't matter. Someone will kill him even if he stands trial.

I say behead the fucker on videotape, anyway
 
This is why I support Obama. He's not completely out of his mind and willing to take away peoples rights just because they are "terrorists."
 
This is why I support Obama. He's not completely out of his mind and willing to take away peoples rights just because they are "terrorists."

even Obama wouldn't give Bin Laden a trial, and that is probably the one thing he is right on. I don't want to see this guy going thru the same system OJ went through - i want to see his corpse on the TV screen.

This all moot anyway. From what i've read, he would prefer that one of his subordinates shoot him rather than get captured.
 
even Obama wouldn't give Bin Laden a trial, and that is probably the one thing he is right on. I don't want to see this guy going thru the same system OJ went through - i want to see his corpse on the TV screen.

This all moot anyway. From what i've read, he would prefer that one of his subordinates shoot him rather than get captured.

Yes he would. Everyone deserves a trial. Even Osama Bin Laden.

Even Satan himself.
 
Are you people serious? No non-citizen has any of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
 
Osama is dead. I've believed that for a long time, I haven't seen a video tape of him for 5 years and only heard "audio tapes". I think our government is using him as a boogie man tool. More propaganda to fuel the fire for the "War on Terror".
 
Are you people serious? No non-citizen has any of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

All human beings have the rights given to the constitution. They are natural and inalienable to ever fucking human being in the world. Simple as that.
 
That makes you just as good as him.
You have every right to your opinion.I as well have that right.
I don't recall anytime that I killed 3000 civilians.If I did do this then I would fully understand why I was being killed by some PISSED OFF people.
But then again, I would not kill a man unless it was in self defense, and even then I would feel horrible about it, and would pray to the lord that I would be forgiven.

I do want to add that I was being sarcastic, and I do not believe this is how we should handle Bin Laden, but if he did end up on the streets of NY I believe the people have the right to defend themselves.I'm positive some of them would have no moral convictions if they were to murder him.

BTW I think he's dead.
 
Are you people serious? No non-citizen has any of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

WRONG.

All human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights.

The constitution is a set of instructions to the government. The Bill of Rights outlines a list of restrictions that specifically constrain the government with regard to certain rights. Nowhere do these restrictions say that they are only to be applied to US citizens. In fact, the amendments refer to "person" and "people."

When the 5th amendment says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

It doesn't say "no US citizen."
 
Last edited:
Some people just need killin, guys.

Bust out the pitchforks.

Never mind that we don't know whether he's innocent, guilty, who the accomplices are, if there are any. We have the word of George W. Bush and his friends. That's good enough.
 
Bust out the pitchforks.

Never mind that we don't know whether he's innocent, guilty, who the accomplices are, if there are any. We have the word of George W. Bush and his friends. That's good enough.

How would u go about it? We don't have the "word of George Bush." We have the "word" of almost everyone on the planet except the ones who come to this forum
 
Back
Top