I meant that as a lawyer you know you’d be an unacceptable juror, not that as a lawyer you’re disqualified from serving on a jury (though you might as well be!)
The point stands- there is simply no way to find an impartial US jury [to try bin Laden]. The fact that that doesn’t seem to bother anyone bothers me more than a little- and I think he’s guilty too!
How did they find impartial folks to try Nazi war criminals?
I believe it is possible to find a jury capable of putting aside any pre-conceived notions about the case and basing their verdict only on the evidence presented at trial. That’s all Justice requires.
No.
Hell-fucking-yes. Have the UN try him, or put him on trial for war crimes. But find the bastard. I don’t see how it’s any different from hunting down former Nazis. He committed crimes against humanity-find him, try him, and if he’s found guilty-fry the son of a bitch. (Yeah, this is one of those rare times when I DO support the death penalty.) Either that, or put him on display at a zoo somewhere.
The Nuremberg trials were not jury trials; they were performed by tribunals. In any event, they neither took place in America nor under according to the terms of American jurisprudence, and the defendants were not charged with breaking American laws.
That may be all Justice requires (may she rest in peace), but the Constitution is a bit more exacting.
ETA: It occurs to me that this is IMHO, and I’m hijacking. Feel free to start a GD thread if anyone else still wants to discuss this, and I’ll be happy to participate.
Afraid I’m going to need a cite for that.
Well, then, can’t we have something similiar to the Nuremberg trials?
Having spent 13 years living in two geopolitically significant Islamic countries, Egypt and Indonesia, I’ve gotten the impression - from what is written in the local press, from banners that go up along the street, from local citizens who report to me what some of their more conservative brethren feel, from seeing demonstrations that are happening around me - that yes, the base of support for fundamentalism does ebb and flow based on current events. That’s all a form of hearsay, though, and nothing I can cite.
Well, in theory, the defendant could waive his right to jury trial, and have a judge decide whether he’s guilty.
Yes.
I don’t really have a “gotta git 'im” attitude, but I can’t particularly understand why anyone would say no. Or, rather, I think at least that anyone who thinks we shouldn’t be looking for him should also think we shouldn’t be looking for any loose criminals. Why should he be different than any other dangerous criminal on the run? Hell they hunt down guys hiding in other countries for killing 1 person, let alone 3000. Should they not?
The German and Japanese leadership that were tried after WWII were a very different case. They had been legal representatives of their governments and the “crimes” they committed were international acts of war.
Bin Laden is not in that league. He would be charged with conspiracy to commit specific criminal acts like hijacking planes and committing murder and destroying property. While his crimes are large they do not fall outside of the scope of normal criminal law and court procedures.
My “No” implied neither tolerance nor understanding, rather it was response to the OP’s question.
The Nazi analogues are apt to the extent that many perpetrators eventually had consequence but unequal given Allied victory essentially eliminated their cause.
NO treatment of OBL will curtail jihad.
Personally, I could violate my Zen Master status wih my thumbs and his neck.
Right answer! I would sign the petition for this to happen. I’d also take the bet that it would produce negative results. On top of being a creep the asshole is a pussy. If his followers only had the brains to realize it.