NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt by a jury of his/her peers. No matter who the person is, they are entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Even non-US citizens are protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Everyone who has ever taken a basic level civics class knows this to be true.

So ....

What if Osama bin Laden were put on trial and found completely innocent by a jury? Remember that a confession is not adequate proof of guilt. Guilt must be *proven*. I could say I am responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't make it true. So, what if no concrete evidence can be found linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks and he is set free?

How much faith do you really have in America?

In the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt by a jury of his/her peers. No matter who the person is, they are entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Even non-US citizens are protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Everyone who has ever taken a basic level civics class knows this to be true.

So ....

What if Osama bin Laden were put on trial and found completely innocent by a jury? Remember that a confession is not adequate proof of guilt. Guilt must be *proven*. I could say I am responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't make it true. So, what if no concrete evidence can be found linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks and he is set free?

How much faith do you really have in America?


Osama would never make it to trial, kinda like copkillers, pre-1960's. ;)

People still have common sense.

In the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt by a jury of his/her peers. No matter who the person is, they are entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Even non-US citizens are protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Everyone who has ever taken a basic level civics class knows this to be true.

So ....

What if Osama bin Laden were put on trial and found completely innocent by a jury? Remember that a confession is not adequate proof of guilt. Guilt must be *proven*. I could say I am responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't make it true. So, what if no concrete evidence can be found linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks and he is set free?

How much faith do you really have in America?


1) if you say that you are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that would be considered a confession. If you could describe in detail how you carried it out, and that it was your plan all along, then Osama would find himself free and you would be on trial because you confessed. Yes, confession is adequate proof of guilt. especially since he confessed without interrogation, infront of millions of people, and it's recorded... Evidence.

2) Investigations already has evidence that he was the mastermind behind 9/11, written statements from Al Quida operatives do mention that OBL mentioned useing passenger planes to bring down the two towers. all this will be brought forth should OBL be captured for trial.

I have every faith in America and it's justice system. It may not be perfect, but untill someone creates something better, it is the best.

Osama will not be tried in the United States. The trial would be held in a nuetral nation and UN rules will apply.

1) if you say that you are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that would be considered a confession. If you could describe in detail how you carried it out, and that it was your plan all along, then Osama would find himself free and you would be on trial because you confessed. Yes, confession is adequate proof of guilt. especially since he confessed without interrogation, infront of millions of people, and it's recorded... Evidence.

2) Investigations already has evidence that he was the mastermind behind 9/11, written statements from Al Quida operatives do mention that OBL mentioned useing passenger planes to bring down the two towers. all this will be brought forth should OBL be captured for trial.

I have every faith in America and it's justice system. It may not be perfect, but untill someone creates something better, it is the best.


But that's not the question ...

The question is "WHAT IF" ...

What if they can't amass enough concrete evidence? What if he is acquitted and sent home free?

What will you do?

Osama will not be tried in the United States. The trial would be held in a nuetral nation and UN rules will apply.
Do you really think that if the US captured him, we would hand him over to the UN? We're not even a part of the ICC.

Do you really think that if the US captured him, we would hand him over to the UN? We're not even a part of the ICC.

What did we do with Saddam?

Personally i think there would be an "accident" and he'd die before ever seeing a court room, maybe some under the table deal with a gaurd in the military, he kills osama, gets discharged and a nice retirement fund from someone high up

Do you really think that if the US captured him, we would hand him over to the UN? We're not even a part of the ICC.
Not yet at least. Arrogant farts.

This is the biggest problem with our society and its process of elimination of who is guilty and who is innocent. We are based on assumptions and suspects (suppose). So there is no real definite answer and we already have limited our assumption that the plaintiff is the plaintiff and the defendant is the defendant. Heresay has more say that truthsay.

The US is not required to give rights to non-citizens. The government could give rights to Osama and try him like he is an American but they do not have to.

What did we do with Saddam?
Right now he's in our custody, and I think the Iraqis are going to try him.

But that's not the question ...

The question is "WHAT IF" ...

What if they can't amass enough concrete evidence? What if he is acquitted and sent home free?

What will you do?

Well, if it all Hypothetical, I will use my l33t spy skills and my silenced sniper rifles to take out Bin Laden as he exits the courthouse a free man.

That ought to satisfy thie big "What If"



A confession is only not good enough for a conviction when it is recanted. If OBL wanted to state in front of the world that he was indeed a fake and phony and did not do the things he said... I guess that would indeed put the burden of proof on the prosecution to show he was guilty. But all that is needed is to show he led the group that caused the events to happen. If you give the order for a murder, and it filters down through several people before getting to the actual assasin, you are still guilty of that murder.

The US is not required to give rights to non-citizens. The government could give rights to Osama and try him like he is an American but they do not have to.
It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N. which the US signed aswell.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


My how fickle and transitory the Americans are with granting and revoking basic human rights. And you wonder why Osama flattened the WTC... hahaha

The US is not required to give rights to non-citizens. The government could give rights to Osama and try him like he is an American but they do not have to.

Ehhh... you need to catch up on your reading of law books there kid.

My how fickle and transitory the Americans are with granting and revoking basic human rights. And you wonder why Osama flattened the WTC... hahaha

Yo.. back off before your own history starts being brought into question. Ignorance of the particulars are one thing.

But Banditos didn't sign the treaty, and apparently wasn't aware of it. You want to start getting into People and Countries getting what they deserved? Your country still bears the name Germany. Be thankful for that. Be thankful your culture, heritage, and society weren't ground to dust and eliminated completely after the SECOND TIME a GERMAN meglomaniac Started a World War.

We only lost the twin towers. Shall I start the list as to all the CITIES Germany lost?

So drop the attitude. People in Glass German made houses shouldn;t even THINK about throwing stones.

The topic was about the US Constitution if I was not mistaken.


And I made a mistake. There was a recent court ruling that overruled the denial of rights to non-citizens.

Do you really think that if the US captured him, we would hand him over to the UN? We're not even a part of the ICC.


What if he's not captured by the US?


It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N. which the US signed aswell.
Perhaps best not to rely on the UDHR. It is after all a non-binding resolution of the General Assembly. Try the ICCPR. There's due process rights and what not in there and it is binding. Ofcourse, what ramifications there would be for the US if it broke those rights, well, they'd only be political and the US hasn't exactly shown itself to care much about international law anyway.



Also, just a wee technical note. No court/jury ever finds a defendant innocent. Not-guilty is different to innocent. The most obvious example of this is a person not guilty of murder due to insanity.


I have every faith in America and it's justice system. It may not be perfect, but untill someone creates something better, it is the best.
There is something better. The inquisitorial system of Continental Europe.

They'd certainly try him for something else. I'm sure they could pull out so many charges that the courts wouldn't be finished with him before he died of age were he to continually be found innocent.

They'd certainly try him for something else. I'm sure they could pull out so many charges that the courts wouldn't be finished with him before he died of age were he to continually be found innocent.

That comes up against the double jeapardy rule. You can't be tried for the same thing twice, even under a different label.

That comes up against the double jeapardy rule. You can't be tried for the same thing twice, even under a different label.

Different crimes aren't protected under double jeopardy. There's bombings of multiple embassies and the USS Cole and such that would require different trials.

That comes up against the double jeapardy rule. You can't be tried for the same thing twice, even under a different label.
I dont really think that it's that simple. If one act breaks 3 laws you can be charged with all three crimes - technically you are being charged on 3 seperate counts, but simultaneously you are being charged 3 times for one act, but under different labels. Take that New Zealand guy exporting the guns out of the States, he was tried and sentenced then when he was due to be released he was arained in another State and tried and sentenced all over again. Technically he wasnt being charged twice under different labels (according to the law) but the effect was the same.

I suspect that it would be possible for legal purposes to actually find Osama had commited many seperately chargable crimes (ie one trial fails start another over using charges that arise from a seperate occasion). Given the complexity of the cases and the difficulty of gathering evidence the delay between arrest under one set of charges and trial under another (after a 'not-guilty' finding in a 1st set of charges) wouldnt be untenable, the prosecution can claim they brought their charges as quickly as discovery of evidence allowed them to.

Or at least that's how I reason it, with my admittedly less than erudite understanding of the US legal system.

In the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt by a jury of his/her peers. No matter who the person is, they are entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Even non-US citizens are protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Everyone who has ever taken a basic level civics class knows this to be true.

So ....

What if Osama bin Laden were put on trial and found completely innocent by a jury? Remember that a confession is not adequate proof of guilt. Guilt must be *proven*. I could say I am responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't make it true. So, what if no concrete evidence can be found linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks and he is set free?

How much faith do you really have in America?

If we can't convict him, we will release him. In Times Square. :D

Personally i think there would be an "accident" and he'd die before ever seeing a court room, maybe some under the table deal with a gaurd in the military, he kills osama, gets discharged and a nice retirement fund from someone high up

This may make Americans and Westerners feel better, however it would just be yet another example of double standards in the poverty ridden Arab areas leading to yet more hatred and more recruitment. Terrorism will never be defeated, not by military means anyway, you kill them, and more will spring up in thier place eventually. Sooner or later another Al Qaeda style group will assemble themselves if nothing is done about the core reasons people would sign up. Military action does not work very well against terrorists, as you kill them and then that just makes people slightly sympahetic polarised towards the terrorist point of view - Britain tried it in Ireland for centuries and it does not work, they had to bite the bullet and talk to them, same in Spain with ETA.

I dont really think that it's that simple. If one act breaks 3 laws you can be charged with all three crimes - technically you are being charged on 3 seperate counts, but simultaneously you are being charged 3 times for one act, but under different labels. Take that New Zealand guy exporting the guns out of the States, he was tried and sentenced then when he was due to be released he was arained in another State and tried and sentenced all over again. Technically he wasnt being charged twice under different labels (according to the law) but the effect was the same.

I suspect that it would be possible for legal purposes to actually find Osama had commited many seperately chargable crimes (ie one trial fails start another over using charges that arise from a seperate occasion). Given the complexity of the cases and the difficulty of gathering evidence the delay between arrest under one set of charges and trial under another (after a 'not-guilty' finding in a 1st set of charges) wouldnt be untenable, the prosecution can claim they brought their charges as quickly as discovery of evidence allowed them to.

Or at least that's how I reason it, with my admittedly less than erudite understanding of the US legal system.


Yes, you can be charged in one trial under several separate offences. However, you can't have several separate trials for the same fact scenario. So, once the trial is done, that fact scenario is untouchable as the basis of another charge.

I think the US broke the double jeapardy rule in that instance. But there's something about the whole federal system which is screwy and apparently it was a different thing. I think there was a great miscarriage of justice surrounding that whole affair and it's great that he's finally back here. Haha, you probably havn't picked up on it, but I'm really holding myself back from letting loose a scathing vitriol against the whole affair...US in particular...

Also, note that civil and criminal trials are separate. You can be charged for an offence, be found not guilty but not have that affect your being sued civilly. That's different.

Yes, you can be charged in one trial under several separate offences. However, you can't have several separate trials for the same fact scenario. So, once the trial is done, that fact scenario is untouchable as the basis of another charge.
Aha, but I think that with Osama, his acts can be construed into many seperate fact sets. 9/11 is one, but that is not the only pie his finger has been in. Keeping in mind US conspiracy laws I would suspect they could come up with dozens if not 100's of seperate cases often involving entirely different crime locations, and different 'co-conspirators'. So if they wanted to 'hold over' charges as a back up, I think it would be hard for any defense to prove that the bombing of the US Cole for instance is the same crime/fact scenario as the World Trade bombing and the latter 9/11.

I think the US broke the double jeapardy rule in that instance. But there's something about the whole federal system which is screwy and apparently it was a different thing. I think there was a great miscarriage of justice surrounding that whole affair and it's great that he's finally back here. Haha, you probably havn't picked up on it, but I'm really holding myself back from letting loose a scathing vitriol against the whole affair...US in particular...
I'm not sure, because as you say they have federal and state law. I could be way off, but I think that you can be charged once under any law system, for instance if you commit simultaneously a crime under federal law and under the State law of New York and under the State Law of Washington, you can be charged by all three parties (Federal Government, State of New York, State of Washington). As I say I'm not really sure about this, but bearing in mind that if one state wants to charge someone currently in the custody of another state, they need to 'extradict' the criminal and try them in their own 'jurisdiction', along with the recent case involving the gun exportation this leads me to speculate that perhaps under the US system each jurisdiction is bound by double jeopardy independently of any other jurisdiction.

Also, note that civil and criminal trials are separate. You can be charged for an offence, be found not guilty but not have that affect your being sued civilly. That's different.
Yes but is it because there is an exception being made (re civil), or is this an extension of a rule that applies throughout (ie each jurisdiction has their own 'one shot') the system.

Osama would be most likely be considered an enemy combatant and not afforded a normal trial. Lincoln did it in the Civil War, Roosevlt did it in WWII the Bushies have been pushing for it to apply to terrorists. Under the Supreme Court decision Rasul v. Bush he coudld challenge his detention in federal court but he wouldn't be afforded a full criminal trial like a criminal defendant. That is pretty much it. They could try him before a military tribunal and shoot him if they wanted to but, I am sure when they catch him they will have a big show trial probably similar to what to the ad hoc war crimes tribunals to try Serbian or Rwandan nationals charged with crimes against humanity.

Osama would be most likely be considered an enemy combatant and not afforded a normal trial. Lincoln did it in the Civil War, Roosevlt did it in WWII the Bushies have been pushing for it to apply to terrorists. Under the Supreme Court decision Rasul v. Bush he coudld challenge his detention in federal court but he wouldn't be afforded a full criminal trial like a criminal defendant. That is pretty much it. They could try him before a military tribunal and shoot him if they wanted to but, I am sure when they catch him they will have a big show trial probably similar to what to the ad hoc war crimes tribunals to try Serbian or Rwandan nationals charged with crimes against humanity.

Your problem there is that to consider him an enemy combatant, there needs to have been an actual war in which he was a soldier in. The label "War on Terrorism' is meaningless when it comes to determining a war. I don't think you could bring in Laws of War for the actions of September 11. If he'd done something whilst the US was attacking Afghanistan, you could perhaps bring him in as an enemy combatant for that. Otherwise, he's just an ordinary person committing a crime.

Your country still bears the name Germany. Be thankful for that. Be thankful your culture, heritage, and society weren't ground to dust and eliminated completely after the SECOND TIME a GERMAN meglomaniac Started a World War.

We only lost the twin towers. Shall I start the list as to all the CITIES Germany lost?

So drop the attitude. People in Glass German made houses shouldn;t even THINK about throwing stones.
Britain had many of its cities flattened during the second world war. Does that mean I can't throw stones? The Second World War finished 60 years ago. You wouldn't accuse Russians of being Communist nowadays because of the USSR. The so - called war on terror is still relevant, because its still being mismanaged today.