As far as OBL's culpability goes, he has stated his own involvement in the direction and organization of not only the 9/11 attacks but also the attacks on 2 US Embassies and the U.S.S. Cole. 

Evidence also suggests that OBL and his associate, the new al Qaeda heir apparent, Anwar al-Awlaki, were the main sources of inspiration for the events of 7/7 in London.

The reasons for not wanting OBL to stand trial are many but perhaps the most persuasive would be the increased security risks manifested because of his detention.

Every single U.S. Citizen and Foreign, Non Muslim; aid worker, civil servant, missionary, nun, priest, soldier, tourist and government official working or living in muslim lands would be subject to being taken hostage and being beheaded in an effort to force OBL's release.

Additionally, but perhaps less importantly, there is not a nation on earth that is going to want it's national security apparatus and methods exposed in a trial that would take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Lastly, a living OBL becomes a motivating cause celebre for the entire muslim world whereas a dead OBL will eventually become just another tired martyr poster.

This was a just and moral action and I don't giving a flying fornication whether or not it is considered legal by the U.N. or any other international community.

Last edited by captainpreppy (2011-05-09 15:42:07)

following this bicker-fest with much amusement. as an Umurcan, I'm interested as to who our international role-model should be. The SAS? Brazillian death squads?

on the other hand, the guy was essentially created by the Free World...a trial would have made for some interesting cross-examination. at least according to that damn gawd-hatin' librul Ollie North.

Last edited by Marc Grayson (2011-05-09 17:24:36)

FNB, Captain Preppie and Grizzly, a composite reply, as so far undelivered, if I may:

First, FNB: It is good internet and full and frank debate.

Secondly, Captain Preppie: The USA has come a long way, in a short time, to have achieved the position that it enjoys in the world and I thought that the days of 'frontier justice' were long gone. A great leader should: reflect his people on election; recognize his obligation to influence them for the better, during his term, and then represent their will. Only in this way will (our) civilization be advanced.

One of your greatest Presidents of modern times (hell, one of the greatest of your Presidents of all time), JFK, once said that the failure is not to be judged by aiming too high, and misssing the target, but by aiming too low and achieving it. Since he died,with a couple of lonely exceptions (including Nelson Mandela in South Africa), elected world leaders (that spring to my mind), have not come even close to his calibre. When he died, I was about three years old and I reacall my mother (who has no association with the USA whatsoever), being in tears. Since then, politics, like sport, has become increasingly mired in the money game and this produces systems that are quite different from those enured in the the spirit of competition and simple pride in achievement, which were the hallmarks of national politics, and sport, of past times. Maybe, this is because true excellence is no longer enough. Enough?: hell, it is increasingly discouraged in our educational systems; on the feeble basis that, in a democracy (seemingly bragged about over a meritocracy), too many will be shown to be ordinary losers. Therefore, everyone is just after an unearned, vacuous 'celebrity' and not to mention the dough - and so much dough that they cannot, on any conceivable basis, really need it all for themselves (and their small time on earth), alone. If 'the 'first world' is now seen to be on its knees, maybe it is because it has returned to worshipping at the shrine of the golden calf.

Grizzly Adams: on the videos: do you understand Arabic? Who are 'his followers'? I have never said that ObL did not deserve 'justice'. In fact, I have always said that he did. I do not regard anyone as 'inconsequential'. Your disquisition on law and morality unconvincingly, attempts to compress into a remarkably short space, the combined thinking of the best thinkers of the last two thousand (or more) years and I am unequal in the time that I will allow myself and the cyberspace available, to reply; except to say that, generally speaking, in every civilization the law follows morality. That is to say that, as civilization evolves, the law is brought into line, more or less, to reflect the moral thinking of those in government who, in turn, should reflect the thinking of those who elect them. I note that you now maintain that the lawful authority of the world is behind you; but I should watch out with that flying f**k of yourn, because you never know when it might turn and take you suddenly from behind the head, in your own bedroom, in the middle of the night. I would need to be convinced of ObL's actions and their proven causative effect, before I condemned them but my own personal assessment is irrelevant to the administration of justice. I hide nowhere and behind nothing. I just ask to know the truth.

I am naif.

I don't 'enjoy' writing this and I have nothing to gain from it. You are free to believe what you like; including that I am sympatheitc to terrorism, but it is not true. I have never stated my wife's religion. I have said that she is a Kashmiri and feels that the world is better off without terrorists. I am in the happy position of not having to do or believe anything, except according to my own mind.

Camomile lotion is damned effective against milder cases of wild bee stings but, if you think (as well you might ), that the venom has gone to your brain), then I suggest, as a fellow Buff Bastard, that you seek medical assistance without delay.