Statement From the Family of Osama bin Laden on His Death

[Zatch]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/binladen-statement.html?_r=1

[emazur]

I didn't notice anything they said that was unreasonable. They want proof of death, so do a lot of people. They question how an unarmed UBL was summarily executed without trial, so does Judge Nap.

[Zatch]

I didn't notice anything they said that was unreasonable. They want proof of death, so do a lot of people. They question how an unarmed UBL was summarily executed without trial, so does Judge Nap.

Read the whole thing. They are issuing an ultimatum:


Failure to answer these questions will force us to go to International forum for justice such as International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and UN must take notice of the violation of international law and assist us to have answers for which we are lawful in seeking them. A panel of eminent British and international lawyers is being constituted and a necessary action may be taken if no answers are furnished within 30 days of this statement.

And they're mad they couldn't perform a Muslim burial lol:


His sudden and un witnessed burial at sea has deprived the family of performing religious rights of a Muslim man.

So sad. I can hear the families of those incinerated on 9/11 playing violins for you.

[Zatch]

Just seems kind of douchy coming from the family of a mass murderer.

[ronpaulitician]

Not to go all conspiracy theorist, but was it ever proven that bin Laden was involved in 9/11? (I think I remember his "Most Wanted" page not listing the 9/11 attack as one of his crimes.)

[Zatch]

Not to go all conspiracy theorist, but was it ever proven that bin Laden was involved in 9/11? (I think I remember his "Most Wanted" page not listing the 9/11 attack as one of his crimes.)

1. He admitted to the September 11th attacks

2. He was involved in other attacks. He was a mass murderer before Sept 11th.


Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

[Zatch]

I'm not saying I agree with the assassination. (I don't really even know if it was an assassination or if they intended to capture him because the story keeps changing) I'm just saying the threat and the complaining that they couldn't give him a Muslim burial makes it seem like they aren't too ashamed OBL.

[Kelly.]

I'm not saying I agree with the assassination. (I don't really even know if it was an assassination or if they intended to capture him because the story keeps changing) I'm just saying the threat and the complaining that they couldn't give him a Muslim burial makes it seem like they aren't too ashamed OBL.

do you believe that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court?
do you believe the president has the authority to kill a foreign citizen on foreign land?

i think the bin laden family is completely just in what they are asking, please dont confuse that with support for OBL.

[jmdrake]

1. He admitted to the September 11th attacks

In a mistranslated video that has been questioned countless numbers of times and apparently wasn't enough for the FBI to add 9/11 to his wanted poster. If the FBI wasn't even seeking to charge him with 9/11 then it's incongruent to assume he's somehow been "convicted" of 9/11 and that summary execution was ok.



2. He was involved in other attacks. He was a mass murderer before Sept 11th.

Then he should have been arrested and tried.

[acptulsa]

Whatever. We let him die of old age and didn't even shoot up the body afterwards. Don't know what more one could expect. Sounds like sufficiently royal treatment to me.

But then, the House of Saud isn't playing this to us. All politics is local. This music was composed for the enjoyment of the Middle Eastern audience.

Now that it was said, you'll hear no more about it.

[jmdrake]

Read the whole thing. They are issuing an ultimatum:

As is their right to do so.




And they're mad they couldn't perform a Muslim burial lol:


I'm glad they're bringing this up. Obama's whole claim for the burial at sea which has deprived the American people of finality by having an independent person inspect the body is that Obama wanted to "respect Muslim beliefs". But that's total bull. Burial at sea goes against Muslim beliefs unless the person died at sea and you can't preserve the body. I've heard a local idiot talk radio host go on and on about how Obama is "covering" for the Muslims on this. The fact is that Obama disrespected the Muslim community and the American public with this sham.



So sad. I can hear the families of those incinerated on 9/11 playing violins for you.

Some of the 9/11 families didn't show up to Obama's ground zero ceremony because they are angry that Obama dumped the body at sea and they aren't convinced that we really got OBL when we said we did.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/wpix-family-unhappy-about-obama-visit,0,4037272.story

[Brett85]

do you believe that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court?

Yes, if we're talking about U.S citizens involved in domestic crimes. If we're talking about foreigners who don't have U.S Constitutional rights, I don't believe that we should have to read them their miranda rights before we seek justice for the attacks on 9-11.


do you believe the president has the authority to kill a foreign citizen on foreign land?


Yes. President Obama had that authority after the authorization for use of military force was passed after 9-11. That authorization didn't even include the word Afghanistan. It simply gave us the right to kill those responsible for the attacks on 9-11, or those affiliated with Al Quaeda. We finally fulfilled the original purpose of that authorization after we killed Bin Laden.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes. President Obama had that authority after the authorization for use of military force was passed after 9-11. That authorization didn't even include the word Afghanistan. It simply gave us the right to kill those responsible for the attacks on 9-11, or those affiliated with Al Quaeda. We finally fulfilled the original purpose of that authorization after we killed Bin Laden.

The problem with that reasoning is that no one has yet proved OBL had anything to do with 9/11 (hence his wanted poster says nothing about it).

[Brett85]

The problem with that reasoning is that no one has yet proved OBL had anything to do with 9/11 (hence his wanted poster says nothing about it).

He admitted to it himself, and it's a fact that he was the leader of Al Quaeda. Also, it's a fact that he was responsible for the 1st world trade center bombing.

[RyanRSheets]

Yes, if we're talking about U.S citizens involved in domestic crimes. If we're talking about foreigners who don't have U.S Constitutional rights, I don't believe that we should have to read them their miranda rights before we seek justice for the attacks on 9-11.

Our rights don't come from our birthplace of origin or our citizenship.

Justice would have been to bring him back home and publicly try him for his crimes against humanity and execute him once he was found guilty. Justice would have been to prove to us that justice has been done. A great injustice has been done by denying us evidence.

[jmdrake]

He admitted to it himself, and it's a fact that he was the leader of Al Quaeda. Also, it's a fact that he was responsible for the 1st world trade center bombing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vpcABWJiY

And regardless of whether this was "just" or not, not bringing back the body and then hiding behind "Islamic sentiment" is a travesty.

[Brett85]

Justice would have been to bring him back home and publicly try him for his crimes against humanity and execute him once he was found guilty.

I agree that it would've been better to capture him, but I still don't know enough about the details of the operation to know whether it was possible to capture him or not. Also, I would try him in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court, which you probably disagree with.

[pcosmar]

Also, it's a fact that he was responsible for the 1st world trade center bombing.

NO,, The FBI was directly responsible for the first Trade Center Bombing.

[Brett85]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vpcABWJiY

And regardless of whether this was "just" or not, not bringing back the body and then hiding behind "Islamic sentiment" is a travesty.

I've read about that before. It was a botched job by the FBI, but not an attempt by the FBI to actually bomb the towers. It was simply an example of government incompetence. We still have proof that Bin Laden was behind the bombings. However, I do agree with you that Obama should've brought the body back to the United States.

[acptulsa]

I've read about that before. It was a botched job by the FBI, but not an attempt by the FBI to actually bomb the towers. It was simply an example of government incompetence. We still have proof that Bin Laden was behind the bombings. However, I do agree with you that Obama should've brought the body back to the United States.

No matter how you slice it, TC, not one thing about the last decade makes one bit of sense until you stop looking at the U.S. government, the Royal House of Saud and OBL as being on different sides. Just as soon as you make that adjustment, it all makes perfect sense.

[pcosmar]

I have no idea what poor schmuck was killed in Pakistan, and we only have the word of Known liers.

It is my best guess from all available information the He likely died in the Mts. of Afghanistan and was buried there in an unmarked grave.
10 years ago.

[Brett85]

I have no idea what poor schmuck was killed in Pakistan, and we only have the word of Known liers.

It is my best guess from all available information the He likely died in the Mts. of Afghanistan and was buried there in an unmarked grave.
10 years ago.

And I guess if they actually released the pictures you would simply say that they were fake.

[Lothario]

I always enjoy when, after bringing up the fact that the FBI has never found evidence linking Osama to the 9/11 attacks, a person retorts, "well he admitted to it on tape," as if the FBI is simply unaware of this tape, and if only someone would email them the youtube link, then the FBI would have the evidence they've been searching for.

[Lothario]

And I guess if they actually released the pictures you would simply say that they were fake.

justifiably so - you can only cry wolf so many times before all credibility is lost.

[pcosmar]

And I guess if they actually released the pictures you would simply say that they were fake.

Only if they release more obviously doctored photos.
But I would look closely at them.

I operate on the assumption that anything they say is a lie, until proven otherwise. And on the odd occasion that they tell the truth, I question why.

[brandon]

How do we know that this letter is from who they claim it is from?

[pcosmar]

How do we know that this letter is from who they claim it is from?

Simple answer. You don't.
And I don't think any of the "family" has had any contact with Osama for many years.

They would be simply responding to "reports" in the media.

[kahless]

.... President Obama had that authority after the authorization for use of military force was passed after 9-11. That authorization didn't even include the word Afghanistan. It simply gave us the right to kill those responsible for the attacks on 9-11, or those affiliated with Al Quaeda. We finally fulfilled the original purpose of that authorization after we killed Bin Laden.

So what are some here and Judge Nap saying, that the resolution was unconstitutional?

[dannno]

1. He admitted to the September 11th attacks

Prove it. (Hint: No he didn't)



2. He was involved in other attacks. He was a mass murderer before Sept 11th.

That's true, he did bomb some American embassies and such on Middle Eastern soil (which is a bit different than bringing it over here, closer to self defense)

[jmdrake]

I've read about that before. It was a botched job by the FBI, but not an attempt by the FBI to actually bomb the towers. It was simply an example of government incompetence. We still have proof that Bin Laden was behind the bombings. However, I do agree with you that Obama should've brought the body back to the United States.

Ah yes. The government is too incompetent to do conspiracies, but yet so competent that they must have actually landed someone on the moon. And the government is so competent that they cannot be infiltrated by people seeking to do us harm. The "incompetent only when its convenient" theory. I tell you what. If a "botched sting operation" leads to the death of an American, then it should be a capital crime. Use strict liability for such things. Then let's see how much "incompetence" continues.

Besides, back in 1993 Al Qaeda was still actively working with the U.S. government in Kosovo. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html). Another "botched job" I suppose. And if there's "proof" then have a trial and present it. Proof by "media" is not proof. Right now I'm still waiting for proof that OBL was even killed in the raid.

[jmdrake]

I agree that it would've been better to capture him, but I still don't know enough about the details of the operation to know whether it was possible to capture him or not. Also, I would try him in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court, which you probably disagree with.

You do realize that terrorists have a better chance at walking in a military tribunal than it a civilian court right? So far civilian courts have had a much better record at getting convictions. That's in part because military tribunals don't allow guilty pleas in capital cases.

[Brett85]

So what are some here and Judge Nap saying, that the resolution was unconstitutional?

I think that's basically correct. While a full declaration of war would've been better, we're basically talking about a technicality here. The only difference is the wording, and I don't really think that's enough to say that the Bin Laden operation was illegal.

[pcosmar]

http://www.markijlal.com/images/show-me-the-money.jpg

Er,,ah,,,
The BODY

else= STFU

[Brett85]

You do realize that terrorists have a better chance at walking in a military tribunal than it a civilian court right? So far civilian courts have had a much better record at getting convictions. That's in part because military tribunals don't allow guilty pleas in capital cases.

I don't know whether that's true or not, but I do know that civilian trials cost taxpayers a lot more money than military tribunals do. Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City would've cost taxpayers over 1 billion dollars. We simply can't afford that right now. Also, civilian trials are simply that. They are meant for civilians. They were set up to settle domestic disputes here in the U.S.A. The Constitution authorizes military tribunals for foreign prisoners of war.

[pcosmar]

I don't know whether that's true or not, but I do know that civilian trials cost taxpayers a lot more money than military tribunals do. Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City would've cost taxpayers over 1 billion dollars. We simply can't afford that right now. Also, civilian trials are simply that. They are meant for civilians. They were set up to settle domestic disputes here in the U.S.A. The Constitution authorizes military tribunals for foreign prisoners of war.

Prisoners of War ?

What war? what war has been declared? against what nation?

How exactly do you define "prisoners of war" in an undeclared war.? By what criteria?

"You must ask the right questions"

[aGameOfThrones]

Prisoners of War ?

What war? what war has been declared? against what nation?

How exactly do you define "prisoners of war" in an undeclared war.? By what criteria?

"You must ask the right questions"


You know...the U.N resolution one.

[Brett85]

Prisoners of War ?

What war? what war has been declared? against what nation?

How exactly do you define "prisoners of war" in an undeclared war.? By what criteria?

"You must ask the right questions"

I'm talking about people that we capture who are affiliated with Al Quaeda, the group that attacked us on 9-11. We should've declared war against Al Quaeda after 9-11 rather than passing an authorization of use of force. A declaration of war would've made everything a lot more clear cut. I am opposed to this whole idea of perpetual war and occupying foreign countries, but I think it's appropriate to try the prisoners that we have now in military tribunals.

[aGameOfThrones]

I'm talking about people that we capture who are affiliated with Al Quaeda, the group that attacked us on 9-11. We should've declared war against Al Quaeda after 9-11 rather than passing an authorization of use of force. A declaration of war would've made everything a lot more clear cut. I am opposed to this whole idea of perpetual war and occupying foreign countries, but I think it's appropriate to try the prisoners that we have now in military tribunals.


Al Qaeda Is a nation?

[dannno]

If we're talking about foreigners who don't have U.S Constitutional rights, I don't believe that we should have to read them their miranda rights before we seek justice for the attacks on 9-11.

So essentially what you're saying is that our government should be able to murder whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they aren't citizens.

Wow. That's some arrogance.

[Wesker1982]

So essentially what you're saying is that our government should be able to murder whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they aren't citizens.

Wow. That's some arrogance.

+1. Our rights as human beings do not come from a piece of paper.

[aGameOfThrones]

Yes, if we're talking about U.S citizens involved in domestic crimes. If we're talking about foreigners who don't have U.S Constitutional rights, I don't believe that we should have to read them their miranda rights before we seek justice for the attacks on 9-11.







Foreigners have constitutional protected Rights too, silly. Now privileges is a different matter.

[pcosmar]

I'm talking about people that we capture who are affiliated with Al Quaeda, the group that attacked us on 9-11. We should've declared war against Al Quaeda after 9-11 rather than passing an authorization of use of force. A declaration of war would've made everything a lot more clear cut. I am opposed to this whole idea of perpetual war and occupying foreign countries, but I think it's appropriate to try the prisoners that we have now in military tribunals.

Al Quaeda?
And how is that defined? do they have a unique uniform? ID cards?
How exactly is one defined as a member of this catch all group?

or is it just anybody that the USG says it is?

I am asking the questions that you should be asking yourself. But have no logical answer to.

[Brett85]

So essentially what you're saying is that our government should be able to murder whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they aren't citizens.

Wow. That's some arrogance.

If they attacked us on our soil, we have the right to defend ourselves. People like yourself have no idea what it takes to defend liberty. We have the right to fight back after we get attacked, like we did after 9-11.

It's just that we shouldn't be occupying foreign countries and nation building there now. We should close down all of our foreign military bases and use our troops to defend our borders. We can use special operation forces to go after individual terrorists like we did in the Bin Laden situation.

[Brett85]

Al Qaeda Is a nation?

The Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to declare war." It doesn't say that war has to be declared against a particular country.

[Brett85]

Al Quaeda?
And how is that defined? do they have a unique uniform? ID cards?
How exactly is one defined as a member of this catch all group?

or is it just anybody that the USG says it is?

We had proof that Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and others were leaders of Al Quaeda. After 9-11, I believe we should've killed the leadership of Al Quaeda, declared victory, and brought our troops home. I don't believe in perpetual war and nation building in foreign countries.

[aGameOfThrones]

The Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to declare war." It doesn't say that war has to be declared against a particular country.


Got it! War on drugs. War on poverty. Etc... They should send the same special ops team to take out Mari Juana, too.

[Brett85]

+1. Our rights as human beings do not come from a piece of paper.

Apparently you want the United States government to afford rights to every person who lives in foreign countries. Should we get involved in wars in order to "liberate" people as well? After all, don't all people have the right to be free?

[Brett85]

Got it! War on drugs. War on poverty. Etc... They should send the same special ops team to take out Mari Juana, too.

"War" includes military force. "The war on drugs" is simply a slogan. It doesn't involve military force. I don't think our country was attacked by a marijuana plant.

[aGameOfThrones]

Apparently you want the United States government to afford rights to every person who lives in foreign countries. Should we get involved in wars in order to "liberate" people as well? After all, don't all people have the right to be free?

Fail!

[acptulsa]

Apparently you want the United States government to afford rights to every person who lives in foreign countries. Should we get involved in wars in order to "liberate" people as well? After all, don't all people have the right to be free?

Our rights as human beings don't come from the barrel of a gun, either. And we ought to be more reticent about using the barrel of a gun to do anything but protect ourselves, our own rights and the future of our progeny.

I know these are elastic criteria. But Israel is purely and simply not on that list, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

[aGameOfThrones]

"War" includes military force. "The war on drugs" is simply a slogan. It doesn't involve military force. I don't think our country was attacked by a marijuana plant.

Some would disagree. Has the military or any agency connected to It been used in the war on drugs?

[ValidusCustodiae]

There is no such thing as "Constitutional rights". There is such a thing as unalienable rights bestowed by the Creator. There is such a thing as Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Please do not get this confused. That being said, Osama Bin Laden's right to due process is unalienable. I dare you to tell me different. All of those involved, including the President, broke the law in the assassination of Osama Bin Laden *if* the official story is to be believed. Please do not also make the mistake of thinking that just because a government official or group of officials performs an official function that it automatically means that they had the authority to perform said function in the first place.

[ValidusCustodiae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOz6kWBQvqw

"Military Checkpoints in U.S.A. - Wake Up America"

[acptulsa]

Some would disagree. Has the military or any agency connected to It been used in the war on drugs?

Hell, Sheriff Joe used a tank in the War on Cockfights. Military, paramilitary, whatever.

[Brett85]

And we ought to be more reticent about using the barrel of a gun to do anything but protect ourselves, our own rights and the future of our progeny.

Agreed. The only thing I've ever said here is that we have the right to defend ourselves and fight back after we get attacked. We got attacked on 9-11, and we had the right to fight back and protect our country. That doesn't mean that we should start unnecessary, pre-emptive wars like we did in Iraq, but people here need to realize that we have the right to defend ourselves when we get attacked like we did on 9-11.

[ValidusCustodiae]

The United States government cannot "afford" rights. Rights are self-evident! You have confounded yourself. It is the duty of the U.S. government to protect the rights of all human beings under their jurisdiction.

[aGameOfThrones]

Hell, Sheriff Joe used a tank in the War on Cockfights. Military, paramilitary, whatever.

Chickens don't have constitutional Rights. Do you want the u.s government to afford every chicken Rights?

[ValidusCustodiae]

Let me reiterate that crucial point: It is the duty of the U.S. government to protect the self-evident unalienable rights of all human beings that were bestowed by our Creator wherever it has jurisdiction.

[Brett85]

Some would disagree. Has the military or any agency connected to It been used in the war on drugs?

I don't know, but I'm opposed to the war on drugs. I'm opposed to the war on terror to the extent that we shouldn't occupy foreign countries and build infrastrucure. I do believe that it's appropriate to use special operation forces to take out individual terrorists like we did in the Bin Laden operation.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Chickens don't have constitutional Rights. Do you want the u.s government to afford every chicken Rights?

The U.S. government does not afford anyone their rights. It is the duty of the U.S. government to protect the unalienable rights of all human beings regardless of their origin so long as the U.S. government has jurisdiction.

[ValidusCustodiae]

There are no such things as "constitutional rights". You all who keep using that phrase need to get your facts straight!

[Brett85]

The United States government cannot "afford" rights. Rights are self-evident! You have confounded yourself. It is the duty of the U.S. government to protect the rights of all human beings under their jurisdiction.

But U.S citizens are under the jurisdiction of the government. The Constitution authorizes military tribunals for foreign prisoners.

[acptulsa]

Chickens don't have constitutional Rights. Do you want the u.s government to afford every chicken Rights?

Romney, Gingrich and Bachman all declined to try to debate Ron Paul, yet still have rights. So who says that chickens don't have any again?

[Travlyr]

Agreed. The only thing I've ever said here is that we have the right to defend ourselves and fight back after we get attacked. We got attacked on 9-11, and we had the right to fight back and protect our country. That doesn't mean that we should start unnecessary, pre-emptive wars like we did in Iraq, but people here need to realize that we have the right to defend ourselves when we get attacked like we did on 9-11.

We do have the right to defend ourselves, and we have the duty to find the actual culprits before we go around the world killing a bunch of people.

[aGameOfThrones]

The U.S. government does not afford anyone their rights. It is the duty of the U.S. government to protect the unalienable rights of all human beings regardless of their origin so long as the U.S. government has jurisdiction.


Note to self: remember to put /S at the end of some post.

[Brett85]

and we have the duty to find the actual culprits before we go around the world killing a bunch of people.

Isn't that what we did in the Bin Laden situation? We found and killed the actual culprit. Just to be clear once again, I support withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. But I don't have a problem with taking out the actual culprits like we did with Bin Laden.

[aGameOfThrones]

Romney, Gingrich and Bachman all declined to try to debate Ron Paul, yet still have rights. So who says that chickens don't have any again?

Sheriff Joe, that's why he killed them, no?

[Travlyr]

Isn't that what we did in the Bin Laden situation? We found and killed the actual culprit. Just to be clear once again, I support withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. But I don't have a problem with taking out the actual culprits like we did with Bin Laden.

Proof of his involvement is necessary prior to killing him. Where is the proof?

[ValidusCustodiae]

Traditional Conservative, perhaps you should read the Fifth and Sixth amendments again. Now, you can interpret them however you want, and I realize the Supreme Court will probably disagree with me.

[ValidusCustodiae]

A video taped confession is hardly proof, especially when the man in the video is not even Usama in the first place. Sorry, but if it was sufficient evidence our justice department would not decline to indict him due to a lack of evidence, would they?

[acptulsa]

Sheriff Joe, that's why he killed them, no?

Sheriff Joe killed Romney, Gingrich and Bachman? I'm starting to like that guy...

[Brett85]

Traditional Conservative, perhaps you should read the Fifth and Sixth amendments again. Now, you can interpret them however you want, and I realize the Supreme Court will probably disagree with me.

The Bill of Rights applies to U.S citizens. I don't believe our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the purpose of giving rights to those who wish to do harm to us.

[Brett85]

Proof of his involvement is necessary prior to killing him. Where is the proof?

He's confessed to it numerous times. A confession is good enough in a court of law, is it not?

[aGameOfThrones]

Sheriff Joe killed Romney, Gingrich and Bachman? I'm starting to like that guy...

We are talking about chickens, right? LOL

[aGameOfThrones]

The Bill of Rights applies to U.S citizens. I don't believe our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the purpose of giving rights to those who wish to do harm to us.

And before the term U.S citizen was created, who did it apply to? U.S citizens are not exempt from doing harm to the country. Oh yeah, our Rights are unalienable, the founders didn't give us shit.

[acptulsa]

We are talking about chickens, right? LOL

Did you see them debating Ron Paul?

[ValidusCustodiae]

The Bill of Rights applies to U.S citizens. I don't believe our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the purpose of giving rights to those who wish to do harm to us.

Well, you're wrong. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." They didn't say that all U.S. citizens were endowed by constitutional rights, did they? I will be happy to cite contextual evidence in favor of my position if you like. I can dig up quotes and letters by the founders if you like, but I figured part of the text of our Declaration of Independence would be a good start.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Usama confessed numerous times according to who? I would like to see some evidence, please. Then, I would like that evidence used in a fair trial! Thank you, have a nice day!

[Brett85]

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016508.html

"Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution," said Dr. Paul. "These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."

I must not be too far off on this if one of the liberty candidates who this forum promotes agrees with me on this. Rand also supported the operation to kill Bin Laden as well. That's why I can support the liberty candidates this forum promotes, but I often can't agree with the anarchist libertarians here.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Well Rand Paul is wrong, also. Ron Paul would never go along with such a thing, which is why I support him rather than his son!

[ValidusCustodiae]

Traditional Conservative, you will not address my questions, so you forfeit your argument.

[Travlyr]

He's confessed to it numerous times. A confession is good enough in a court of law, is it not?

A confession in a court of law is good enough for me. But Osama bin Laden did not confess in a court of law now, did he? Everyone has a right to life, and everyone has a right to due process prior to losing his life for his actions. I will not take your word for his actions; I need proof of dastardly deeds before I sign on to convicting another human being to death.

Either we are a civilized society, or we are barbarians. The laws-do-not-apply-to-them rulers of today are barbarians, liars, and thieves.

[Brett85]

Well, you're wrong. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

The right to murder our citizens isn't a right, however. People in our country also give up their rights when they harm others. The actions that people take often take away their freedom.

[coastie]

The Bill of Rights applies to U.S citizens. I don't believe our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the purpose of giving rights to those who wish to do harm to us.


...and you'd be right, because the founders didn't write it with the purpose of giving rights to anyone, that was pretty clear in the first line of the DoI, the majority of their writings, principles, etc.....;)

[aGameOfThrones]

Did you see them debating Ron Paul?

Haven't. Were they running around questions as if they had their heads cut off like chickens?

[Brett85]

Well Rand Paul is wrong, also. Ron Paul would never go along with such a thing, which is why I support him rather than his son!

That's why I'm a bigger fan of Rand than I am of Ron.

[ValidusCustodiae]

The right to murder our citizens isn't a right, however. People in our country also give up their rights when they harm others. The actions that people take often take away their freedom.

People do not give up their rights when they harm others, they retain their rights and the only way the government can justly infringe upon them is with an indictment and only then to detain the suspect until a speedy and fair trial can be completed.

[Brett85]

Traditional Conservative, you will not address my questions, so you forfeit your argument.

I'm a little outnumbered here, so I don't have time to respond to everyone. I'm going somewhere now, so I'll talk to you all later.

[acptulsa]

Haven't. Were they running around questions as if they had their heads cut off like chickens?

Not that they'd miss them, but I don't know. Just know they weren't on the stage with him.

[ValidusCustodiae]

I'm a little outnumbered here, so I don't have time to respond to everyone. I'm going somewhere now, so I'll talk to you all later.

Traditional Conservative, you are in favor of oppression and tyranny and want to lower yourself and the selves of your countrymen to the level of whatever barbarians may decide to attack us one day. If we do not defend the freedoms of those who we consider the most despicable, then we are no better than we claim they are.

[aGameOfThrones]

The right to murder our citizens isn't a right, however. People in our country also give up their rights when they harm others. The actions that people take often take away their freedom.

And yet when accuse of murder, citizen and non-citizens still have a Right to due process.

[ValidusCustodiae]

I'm not saying that people have the freedom to kill others at will, I'm saying that they have the unalienable right of a free human being to a fair trial by a jury!

[ValidusCustodiae]

We've tried hundreds of "terrorists" in civilian courts, and put hundreds away. The same should have been done with Bin Laden, if he is who our government claims he is.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Your whole argument is circular. To write that Osama Bin Laden does not deserve a fair trial because he masterminded 9-11 is to commit libel. He allegedly masterminded 9-11, sure. Allegedly.

[aGameOfThrones]

Does Ron Paul run away when he's outnumbered?

[acptulsa]

Does Ron Paul run away when he's outnumbered?

He has been casting 434-1 votes for twenty-three years now...

[TNforPaul45]

http://i55.tinypic.com/acq2p2.png

[aGameOfThrones]

http://i55.tinypic.com/acq2p2.png

That looks like a confession to me. Special ops take him out.

[Brett85]

After thinking about this further, I'll concede a point. It is dangerous to give the President the authority to take out people around the world that he considers members of Al Quaeda. That's what they're trying to authorize in the defense authorization bill, and I disagree with that. So how about this: We bring ALL of our troops home from around the world, stop all the drone bombings, and we'll just completely leave them alone for good. However, if they attack us again despite all that, we'll simply nuke them.

[SWATH]

Just some points reading through the thread:

1. The Constitution does not grant rights
2. Right are inalienable by virtue of our humanity and that there is no higher earthly authority from which to deny us them.
3. Bin Laden did not confess to 9/11 (which is why you hear Ron Paul himself say Bin Laden was "delighted" with 9/11). He actually denied responsibility for it for a long time (although he may have later accepted the credit).
4. This is immaterial, a confession does not close a case it still must go to trial although it can be used as evidence against you if it was properly obtained. Many many people give false confessions to crimes they did not commit for various reasons.
5. You do not give up any rights until you are convicted in a court of law and even then you do not lose them, you are just denied access to them by virtue of your confinement.
6. Nuking anybody will destroy countless innocent life and will create 10,000 more terrorists for us to fight.

[echebota]

If they attacked us on our soil, we have the right to defend ourselves. People like yourself have no idea what it takes to defend liberty. We have the right to fight back after we get attacked, like we did after 9-11.


Even if the 9/11 plains have been operated by OBL people the towers imputing building 7 were clearly demolished by explosives. And I doubt OBL could fly the plains into the towers and more so execute a controlled demolition afterwards without a help of our government. At least this is my conclusion after I did my research. And until proven in court otherwise, this is the most logical explanation. The fact that our government is afraid to investigate these events only makes me doubt the official story even more. Now killing hundreds of thousands foreigners and performing targeted execution without trial is wrong on so many levels regardless of the 9/11.