Amazing what you can think up at night staring at the strange shapes in a Cottage Cheese ceiling…
The attack of 11.9 was a blatant attack on America and all it stands for. Never mind that, what was it? people of 60 countries died in the attack too. While it was on American soil and a srike against America, how is it that the deaths of people from so many different countries hae been ignored?
Before you immediatly flame me for saying that, let it be known that ll i am trying to say is that when people from a third of the worlds countries die, isn’t it more of a world issue than what it is now? Bush’s ‘with us or against us’ thing has been really overhanded, and i think the only reason other coalition courntries haven’t given us a ‘screw you, America’ yet is in large part thanks to Colin Powell, who i think should really be Pres right about now.
Basically what this is debating is whether the US’s insistence that the terrorist should be tried in a US court s really the right thing to do, as opposed to a world court or that one court at the Hague (sorry, forgot name). How do the families of the people abroad feel that the people responsible for their loved ones deaths are off being tried by a government they don’t belong to and/or agree with?
I ealize this may be offensive o people who srvived or lost friends in the WTC, but I am honestly cuious.
sorry for the double post.(new computer. has kinks). mods, please delete this one and members, please respond to the other one with the 2 e’s in weren’t
Well, the act was committed on US soil and against property owned by the US.
I am of the personal opinion that the death penalty is barbaric and unbecoming of a nation that purports to value human rights, and would prefer for any terrorist to be tried in a country or in a forum where the death penalty is not permitted.
But even though a lot of Brits, Chinese, Japanese etc were killed, the forum conveniens is the US. I don’t think there is too much getting around that.
A moot point given Rumsfield’s comments that he would rather see bin Laden dead than in a court. Assassination seems to be the watchword of the day, not justice and the rule of law.
Slight nitpick, but I hardly think “assassination” is the proper term here. Osama declared war on the US and leads a “military” organization. If anything, he’s like a general, and pretty much a fair target. Besides the fact that he mostly certainly will be armed and firing if he is ever found. If he gets a trial, we are being generous.
Giving someone a fair trial is the hallmark of a fair society which acknowledges and respects human rights, not “generosity”.
How can an individual “declare war” on a country? The right to declare war is exclusive on sovereign nations. This sloppybuse of terminology implies that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are entitled to recognition as their own sovereign nation, and legitimacy.
Being “like a general” does not deprive anyone of the right to a trial.
[nitpick] It’s a hallmark, not the hallmark. [/nitpick] However, I agree with Dave Stewart. It’s strange that we’re debating military tribunals, which offer a more-or-less fair trial, but we accept targeting and intentionally killing Al Qaida leaders during battle.
The battle against Al Qaida is somewhere between a war and a criminal enforcement action. It has characteristics of both.
A hundred years ago, war required huge amounts of men and materiel. Today, a relatively small group of individuals who acquire nuclear weapons could destroy an entire nation. We need to evolve new institutions and new visions to deal with this new type of threat. Perhaps could research this question by re-reading old James Bond thrillers.
So he didn’t have the ‘right’ to do it. He did it anyway. This ‘he deserves a fair trial’ stuff assumes, among other things, that we could actually apprehend him. It kinda looks like he is going to some lengths to keep that from happening These guys are armed to the teeth and motivated. Personally, I would rather they kill him than to risk soldier’s lives attempting a capture.(capture always involves risking the lives of officers) We’ve lost enough people to this guy already.
There’s an interesting question which spins on from the OP.
Many nations lost people in the WTC bombings. If, for instance, my country or Britain or any other nation said “bugger you US, we want bin Laden brought here to be tried in our courts” which nation’s legal rights would come up trumps?
I’m kind of thinking that as the US doesn’t recognise the ICJ and other nations do, possibly in international law other nations would have more “right” to seek extradition than the US would.
International law specialists, please weigh in here.
You are mistaking things here. War or not war, it is illegal and immoral to assasinate a person who is in custody and no longer a threat. If Bin Laden falls into the hands of the US, just killing him is a war crime and very contrary to the Geneva convention. You cannot just asasinate your prisoners without trial for whatever they did in the past.
While he is at large and fighting he is a legitimate target. War is fighting enemy forces who are fighting back. It is not exterminating people who are defenseless. This has been explained already several times.
IANAL but if the US captured bin Laden and Britain wanted him extradited for trial in the UK, I’m sure it would fail. I don’t see which British law he has broken. The same would apply to any other country that lost citizens on
On the other hand if bin Laden was captured by/surrendered to say French, then the US would have a valid case for extradition, unless the charges were subject to the death penalty [I presume they would be?], then EU human rights conventions may well mean he would not be extradited.
A really interesting hypothetical would be if he was captured/surrendered to Russian forces. I suspect that they’d hand him over.
If he surrendered to Pakistan, you’d probably see a civil war break-out there.
sailor, I wasn’t talking about assassination. I was asking whether the US - which doesn’t recognise the ICJ - has any higher right in international law to have ObL extradited than do other countries whose citizens were also killed on September 11.
In the extremely hypothetical situation that ObL ends up in the US, what are you going to do? Haul him in front of a grand jury? As far as I understand it the deliberations of grand juries are secret. What are you going to charge him with?
reprise, my post was not refering to yours but to Rossarian’s and others who seem to imply “anything goes in love and war”. Anything does not go. Once taken prisoner a person has certain rights.
During WWII the situation was way more serious and prisoners were treated decently and given their rights. The countries that did not do this lost the war. You can call the present situation a war or whatever you want to call it but it is nowhere as serious as WWII.
IANAL, either, but I am taking course in International Law right now so I have something of a dim grasp of what international law is, but I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge is far from authoritative. With that disclaimer out of the way:
It’s not as if the ICJ is recognized by other nations but not the United States. Cases with binding rulings usually can only be tried in the ICJ if both or however many involved parties consent to the proceedings. Otherwise, what you’re dealing with is an advisory ruling which holds no binding context on states that choose not to participate. Basically if the ICJ holds an extradition trial and we don’t participate we aren’t bound by whatever the ICJ rules. Other states recognize this fact.
Furthermore there’s a pretty strong political aspect to the case against Bin Laden. His targets have been American often (first WTC attack, Saudi Arabian US military dormitories, and then the September 11 tragedy), giving the United States a strong connection to his capture and trial. Other states recognize this fact and I would be very surprised if I were to see a state such as France or Britain which may have also suffered considerable loss in the WTC attack attempt to move the trial to an international court.
Essentially what I’m trying to say here is that while other states may have a “right”, in an abstract sense, to be involved in the prosecution of Bin Laden, we’re the one fronting the effort to capture him, which entitles us to privileges such as dictating the terms under which he will be brought to justice.
Maybe what is required is something akin to the Nuremburg trials after WWII. All of the allied nations were represented in an open military tribunal.
Right now there is some controversey with some allied nations as to whether they want to extridite terrorists if they are to be tried in the US by a closed Military tribunal.
Perhaps the U.S. should consider a joint national trial but ensure this is an open trial so that A) Its allies feel they have a say in the justice. and more importantly B) Its enemies can not accuse the trial for being unfair or a kangaroo court.
After all if this is a fight against international terrorism which effects more than one country, then why shouldn’t the international community despense the justice together.
Of course it does. There is no obligation, under US or international law, to hold a trial for General von Hottencrotch before dropping a bomb on his headquarters (i.e., trying to kill him). Similarly, there is no obligation to hold a trial for Private Chilipepper before throwing him into a POW camp (i.e. incarcerating him).
[Note - I am not addressing the issue of a military tribunal at this time, only the points raised in this thread.]
Fine, then use the term “armed conflict.” The result is the same under international law. As with the US Civil War, that fact that an armed group in open conflict with a government does not have the recognized right to declare war does not mean that the armed conflict must be treated as a law enforcement matter. It can be treated as a military matter, with the rules of warfare, not due process, applying.
>> There is no obligation, under US or international law, to hold a trial for General von Hottencrotch before dropping a bomb on his headquarters (i.e., trying to kill him).
Sua, I am going to disagree with you very strongly. While he is an enemy you can drop a bomb on him but once he is in custody you certainly cannot kill him without commiting a crime. You cannot just kill prisoners of war. No way, no how.
We’re not disagreeing, sailor. I agree with you about requirements after capture. I was just trying to make the point that a person in armed conflict with the US simply does not have the same rights as someone picked up for the murder of his boss.
reprise, the attack occurred on US soil, therefore US gets to try him, unless we agree to send him before an international tribunal. It doesn’t matter how many foreign nationals are killed, the US still gets to try him. If I am mugged while walking around London, then the mugger will be tried in a UK court, even though I am a US citizen.
Attacks against US embassies in foreign nations would also be tried in the US because embassies are technically US soil, as well.
I’m a citizen of the United States. If I’m on vacation in England and I murder another US citizen what court system do you think I’ll be going through? I’d be subject to the British court system.