Huh.
Ok, fine, have a better memory than me. See if I care.
But, B&E and kidnapping aren’t capital crimes. It’s the stuff I mentioned that got him the (un)chair.
>> Killing an American citizen outside the U.S. is against U.S. law
bibliophage, could you provide a cite of the statute which you are referring to? I find this sweeping statement very hard to believe. Surely if an American citizen is sentenced to death in China, the authorities and executioners could not be prosecuted in America.
What if an American is killed in the country of X where the penalty for murder is a fine of 125,000 penjings (aprox $8.52 at the current exchange rate)? Why would American jurisdiction extend there? In fact, murder is mostly a state, not a federal crime. The laws of what state would apply and why?
Reciprocally, if the governor of a certain southern state approves the execution of a citizen of the European Union, which does not admit the death penalty, could this unnamed gowernor be prosecuted for murder in Belgium?
I am not a lawyer nor do I know the first thing about lawyering but my understanding of very general principles of law is that American jurisdiction does not extend to other countries and only very exceptionally would a prosecution of a crime take place and for this it would be required that:
- Both the accused and the victim are American nationals
- The act was a crime according to the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and to the laws of the jurisdiction where it is being prosecuted
- Local authorities who had primary jurisdiction failed to act in any way for no good reason
If two Americans are traveling abroad and one steals from the other and local authorities refuse to act, then I think an American court might assert jurisdiction. OTOH, if local authorities determine no crime was committed, you’d probably have a tougher time getting you local, friendly DA to prosecute.
If while you are in Graphicstan a man steals your wallet, I doubt you could prosecute him in the USA when he later visits Disneyworld with the money he stole from you.
Just imagine if the man who shot a Japanese student by mistake a few years back and was acquitted found himself indicted when he visited Tokyo later.
Any real lawyers want to chime in?
IANAL, but I think that what would make a murder a federal crime is if the crime was carried across state lines. I also think, but am not sure, that local authorities can call in the FBI. I do know that the FBI is very aggressive when it comes to kidnappings. If someone is kidnapped and killed I assume the FBI might get involved.
Chime chime:
I think that bibliophage may have been referring to 18 U.S.C. 2332, which provides as follows:
Interestingly, it appears that whoever drafted Section 2332 was aware of the problem that sailor posed:
(emphasis mine)
As far as whether murder is primarily a state concern, I would imagine that indeed most murder prosecutions in the U.S. take place at the state level. Nevertheless, there has been a trend in recent years to “federalize” crime. In any event, assuming that you want to prohibit the murder of U.S. citizens abroad, it would make sense for the federal government to do it.
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that, as suggested by myself and other posters, you don’t need any fancy statutes to prosecute OBL. For example, he could, in theory, be charged with murder in the State of New York and sit on Rikers Island awaiting trial.
(standard disclaimer about legal advice)
>> such offense was intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population
Sounds like a pretty good definition of terrorism to me. So the statute does not punish any murder of a US national abroad, only those done with terrorist intention. In other words the statute seems more concerned with terrorism than with the crime of murder itself.
Retired General ‘A’ says US marines are not Murderers and will take OBL as justly as possible. Then two minutes later Retired General ‘B’ says “Our guys are just, but this is war, and if OBL dies in a battle he dies in a battle. We’ll Still bring him home. He’ll just be in a pine box. and not walking in chains.!!!”
I will try and locate the script for that conversation on cnn. I could not believe my ears. I usually have cnn on in the backround while I am working. And if anything worth looking at happens I turn around a check it out. I watched that conversation last night, the generals were in the ‘war room’.
Basically, when I read sailer and bibliophage
and lucwarmdiscussing the LAWS about trying someone who is not on American soil. I simply think that this is war. War changes EVERYTHING! I do not believe Retired General ‘A’ at all. I believe white flag or not OBL will be shot in Afghanistan. I don’t think any Marine is going to ‘sight-in’ on him and not pull the trigger.
How can Llama question what his crimes are?
Well, I’m taking the questions here at face value.
There is a difference between discussing how OBL should be treated, and discussing how OBL could be treated. The latter is an interesting legal question, IMHO. The former is an interesting question for Great Debates.
I agree Luc.
>> this is war. War changes EVERYTHING
Sorry but NO! It does not change basic moral principles. It does not allow murder of those who are not a threat. It does not allow murdering those who have surrendered. Civilised nations recognised this long time ago. To advocate otherwise is to take leave of what western civilization stands for and fall precisely into what the people we are fighting are doing.
Today the Taliban murdered four western reporters because “this is war and in war anything goes”. Sorry but NO. Totally unacceptable.
My question is what exactly did he do.
People:He was behind the attacks.
me: ok, how was he behind the attacks
People: well he was the inovlved in funding and planning
Me: to what extent?
People: how can you even question his guilt!!
No one seems to know what part he had in things. I was asking maybe I missed it and they said, but it looks like everyone just KNOWS he was behind it in someways.
(yes I understand he admitted to the COlE ETC ETC, it has nothing to do with what I am asking. I was asking what his role in 9-11 was)
Bin Laden is the head of a terrorist network with which the actual perpetrators of the events were affiliated. I’m not sure that any real evidence has been released that conclusively shows the attack was planned through bin Laden’s organization, but those who have seen the evidence seem to all agree that it does indeed show that. I don’t think any information specifying the exact level of bin Laden’s involvement has been released.
He is known to have publicly incited people to kill Americans, and has encouraged it, funded it, trained others in it, set up an organization to organize it, and has admitted to giving orders to do it in the past. By my understanding of the law, one is guilty of murder if one purposely incites another to commit a murder. But at the very least, the evidence seems to show that bin Laden was part of a conspiracy behind the events of Sept. 11th.
Well I have never been so blatently blunt but…It seems to be impossible to explain this to Llama. I would not even try anymore, to be completely honest. This cat has been antagonizing here for a while.
Bows and exits -> Begging your pardon Llama…
I took your question at face value and speculated that, at a minimum, OBL was informed of and approved of the general concept of attacking the WTC with hijacked airplanes.
This is a reasonable inference for two reasons:
First, in most organizations, be they governments, companies, or universities, an operation of this magnitude and danger would have to be approved at the very highest levels - i.e. by CEO, president, or whatever.
Second, OBL is a wealthy man and no doubt uses large sums of money to his organization. The WTC attacks cost a lot of money in plane tickets, pilot training, other training, and other stuff. It is human nature to ask where your money is going.
Of course, this is all somewhat guesswork - it is possible that OBL told his top lieutenant: “Here’s $1 million. Go hurt the Americans anyway you like. Don’t bother me about it.”
Now, OBL’s culpability for the WTC attacks is a different question. There is little question that he is culpable. (certainly he is morally culpable, he is probably also legally culpable.)