Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentegarn
And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.
What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?
|
It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.
Quote:
|
And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims
|
Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.
Quote:
|
Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.
|
I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.
I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.
George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.
Quote:
|
So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.
|
No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.
Quote:
And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.
The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.
|
Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.
This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).
A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?
As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.
A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.
Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteRat
Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.
|
Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.
with his arms outstretched and his open palms pointing towards the sky. Possibly called 'Ma, what are they givin' me?'
Hybrid Mode
