NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose Bin Laden handed himself into British custody.

What would be the moral thing for Blair to do with him?

What would be the moral thing for Blair to do with him?

Try him before a court of law in accordance with the laws of the UK and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

shoot him.

Try him in accordance with the laws of the UK and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

Not like he would have a choice if Bin Laden was captured in the UK.

But, if Bin Laden were captured in South Waziristan by SAS troops, there would be nothing to stop them from handing him over to the CIA right there.

Try him before a court of law in accordance with the laws of the UK and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

Something like that.

Not like he would have a choice if Bin Laden was captured in the UK.

But, if Bin Laden were captured in South Waziristan by SAS troops, there would be nothing to stop them from handing him over to the CIA right there.

Happily, we're talking about the moral thing as opposed to the realistic thing.

The moral thing to do would be to try him.
Problem is, under what jurisdiction would the U.K have any rights?
Bin Laden didnt break any British laws.....in Britian.

Nor would America.

Sure, its illegal to arrange to blow up a building, killing 3000 people.
But, if you dont do it in America, youre not breaking American law.

The only truly moral thing to do, is to march him out on the streets, and put a bullet in his head.

Kind of like you would a rabid dog.

Morally, I'd say extradite him to the U.S. to stand trial. But I wouldn't shed to many tears if he tripped, and fell on a couple dozens rounds of rifle fire.

Happily, we're talking about the moral thing as opposed to the realistic thing.
Probably why so many of you are disappointed with reality.

The moral thing to do would be to try him.
Problem is, under what jurisdiction would the U.K have any rights?
Bin Laden didnt break any British laws.....in Britian.

Nor would America.

Sure, its illegal to arrange to blow up a building, killing 3000 people.
But, if you dont do it in America, youre not breaking American law.

The only truly moral thing to do, is to march him out on the streets, and put a bullet in his head.

Kind of like you would a rabid dog.
Dude, if the crime happens on American soil, it doesn't matter where you planned it from. Ask Marc Emory.

But, if Bin Laden were captured in South Waziristan by SAS troops, there would be nothing to stop them from handing him over to the CIA right there.

Except of course, among others, the Convention's prohibition on extradition to states that have the death penalty when the person extradited is in jeopardy of having it apply to him, which would be the case regarding the US.

I think he should kick him in the groin a few times. After that, let America have him..

Dude, if the crime happens on American soil, it doesn't matter where you planned it from. Ask Marc Emory.


Sure.

IF you can tie Bin Laden to it.

Can we?

What evidence do we have that irrevocably ties Bin Laden to the events of 9/11?

That gets sticky.

For the record...I have no idea who Marc Emory is.

What evidence do we have that irrevocably ties Bin Laden to the events of 9/11?

He aired his own taped confession, including detailed knowledge of the plot and plotters that only he would have.

Case closed.

He aired his own taped confession, including detailed knowledge of the plot and plotters that only he would have.

Case closed.


When was this?

Was this after he supposedly denied responsibility, but congratulated those who were?

(Not being sarcastic)

If the US didn't have a reputation for torturing terror suspects, the moral thing to do would be to extradite him to the US. But since the US does have that reputation (whether well deserved or not), the moral thing would probably be to try him before an international tribunal.

If the US didn't have a reputation for torturing terror suspects, the moral thing to do would be to extradite him to the US. But since the US does have that reputation (whether well deserved or not), the moral thing would probably be to try him before an international tribunal.

No, the primary problem any European would have in extradition is the fact that the US has the death penalty.

If the US didn't have a reputation for torturing terror suspects, the moral thing to do would be to extradite him to the US. But since the US does have that reputation (whether well deserved or not), the moral thing would probably be to try him before an international tribunal.
Before or after we set fire to his beard?

No, the primary problem any European would have in extradition is the fact that the US has the death penalty.

So does an international human rights tribunal.

So does an international human rights tribunal.
Well, if we capture him first, we'll give him a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.

Then we'll send the corpse over to the Hague.

Shooting him is letting him off too easy. Set him loose in NYC and let the people have a wack at him, no weapons. Spend billions on reanimation. Kill him, reanimate, kill him, reanimate, kill him, reanimate........................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ........................
you get the point.


Fuck the trial. He is guilty.

Well, if we capture him first, we'll give him a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.

Then we'll send the corpse over to the Hague.


Always with the hanging....

Hanging is gruesome.
I say, march him out in the street....BANG to the melon....

Hose off the pavement.....go home.

Done deal.

Except of course, among others, the Convention's prohibition on extradition to states that have the death penalty when the person extradited is in jeopardy of having it apply to him, which would be the case regarding the US.

Uh huh...and how many EU Beurocrats from the Department of EU Convuluted Convention Number 423 Subsection C are currently wandering around monitering Waziristan?

So does an international human rights tribunal.

Actually, no, they don't tend to have that any more. And if they did, then signatories, of which the UK is one, to the European Convention on Human Rights would be bound by it to not extradite people to the tribunal, as per its ban on the death penalty and extradition of people to countries where the death penalty is in use and the person extradited is in jeopardy of having it apply.

An international tribunal would be a bad idea because he would probably die awaiting trial.

An international tribunal would be a bad idea because he would probably die awaiting trial.
Milosevic could probably claim that he's being tortured by sheer boredom.

Uh huh...and how many EU Beurocrats from the Department of EU Convuluted Convention Number 423 Subsection C are currently wandering around monitering Waziristan?

The UK is expected to police itself. Breaching the convention, especially by volition, is a serious matter and no member of the Council of Europe has so far refused to comply with it and the rulings of the ECHR.

The UK is expected to police itself. Breaching the convention, especially by volition, is a serious matter and no member of the Council of Europe has so far refused to comply with it and the rulings of the ECHR.

Apparently, there has been considerable debate on the meaning of "torture" in the context of the ECHR. The UK still doesn't believe that uncomfortable positions, sleep deprivation, etc., are torture - and the rest of the EU seems to think that anything that makes the prisoner feel intimidated during the course of any questioning is torture.

Fass, your job in the New Swedish Intelligence service is to serve tea and cakes to the new prisoners so they don't feel intimidated. And no jokes about greasing them up! You know how homophobes feel about that!

Considering that America (and the rest of the world) regard the attacks on the World Trade Center an act of war, the legal, moral and only thing to do is to put him in front of the International Criminal Court in The Hague and have him tried there.
Same as Milosevic.

Considering that America (and the rest of the world) regard the attacks on the World Trade Center an act of war, the legal, moral and only thing to do is to put him in front of the International Criminal Court in The Hague and have him tried there.
Same as Milosevic.

So they can do what they're doing to Milosevic - torturing him with boredom

For the record, if any nation were to capture Bin Laden, and then refused to hand him over to the U.S. for trial, MY OPINION is that it would unite the country instantly, and ignite a shitstorm that would make the anti-war protests look like a family picnic.

I may be wrong though about the uniting thing. But the shitstorm thing, thats a given.

For the record, if any nation were to capture Bin Laden, and then refused to hand him over to the U.S. for trial, MY OPINION is that it would unite the country instantly, and ignite a shitstorm that would make the anti-war protests look like a family picnic.

I may be wrong though about the uniting thing. But the shitstorm thing, thats a given.

One might recall the reaction when the Taliban refused to hand him over...

One might recall the reaction when the Taliban refused to hand him over...
Excellent reference!

Apparently, there has been considerable debate on the meaning of "torture" in the context of the ECHR. The UK still doesn't believe that uncomfortable positions, sleep deprivation, etc., are torture - and the rest of the EU seems to think that anything that makes the prisoner feel intimidated during the course of any questioning is torture.

Should a new ruling be needed, it will come, especially now that persons can petition the court directly. Just you wait.

Fass, your job in the New Swedish Intelligence service is to serve tea and cakes to the new prisoners so they don't feel intimidated. And no jokes about greasing them up! You know how homophobes feel about that!

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

I'm trying to make a joke, Fass... :fluffle:

One might recall the reaction when the Taliban refused to hand him over...

That was a third world nation. The US doesn't invade nations that can protect themselves, for instance nuclear powers, which China and North Korea are perfect examples of. The UK has nukes, and, really, the thought of the US invading a NATO or EU country is ludicrous to even entertain.

I'm trying to make a joke, Fass... :fluffle:

I realised that. It just wasn't funny, and aimed for irrelevant subversion.

Considering people's opposition to the death penalty, and considering that we're talking hypotheticals (capturing Bin Laden, for instance), would any of you change your mind about the death penalty, if, for instance, a terrorist released smallpox and several billion people died.

Let's say he freely admits it, and we capture him alive. Off to the Hague...

Would you be against the death penalty in that case?

These guys want to be martyrs they want to die for their cause so the death penaltys would only rally up support for terrorism.

Would you be against the death penalty in that case?

Yes.

Yes.
I guess you're figuring "what difference would it make now?"

Considering people's opposition to the death penalty, and considering that we're talking hypotheticals (capturing Bin Laden, for instance), would any of you change your mind about the death penalty, if, for instance, a terrorist released smallpox and several billion people died.

Let's say he freely admits it, and we capture him alive. Off to the Hague...

Would you be against the death penalty in that case?

Of course. If any Western nation killed him for killing others, they themselves wouldn't be any better than him, would they?

Of course. If any Western nation killed him for killing others, they themselves wouldn't be any better than him, would they?

Remind me once again why all those guys were hanged at Nuremburg.

Of course. If any Western nation killed him for killing others, they themselves wouldn't be any better than him, would they?
Actually, yes we would. we would be killing a brutal murderer who has vowed to destroy us all, as opposed to innocent civilians. I see a tiny difference.

That was a third world nation. The US doesn't invade nations that can protect themselves, for instance nuclear powers, which China and North Korea are perfect examples of. The UK has nukes, and, really, the thought of the US invading a NATO or EU country is ludicrous to even entertain.
Hey, if we carpetbomb the shit out of them, and they decide to be pussies, and launch nukes, then shame on them! [/obvious humor]

Interesting...

Secondary topic; is the desire for vengence so strong that public floggings, humiliation and eventual live execution would be a governmental policy should OBL be captured?

Interesting...

Secondary topic; is the desire for vengence so strong that public floggings, humiliation and eventual live execution would be a governmental policy should OBL be captured?

Live from the half-time show at the Super Bowl...

Yeah, but it wouldn't be a wardrobe malfunction - just a neck stretching...

Live from the half-time show at the Super Bowl...

Yeah, but it wouldn't be a wardrobe malfunction - just a neck stretching...
Comparatively less response on that question...

Next:

Would you watch?

Comparatively less response on that question...

Next:

Would you watch?

I would record it for posterity.

Fuck the trial. He is guilty. Yeah, and Jews eat babies, because… because… well, everyone knows they do, don't they? [/12th Century]

Honestly, what is WRONG with giving a fair trial and a sentence? When it comes right down to it, he's organised murder… we have penalties for that.

For the record, if any nation were to capture Bin Laden, and then refused to hand him over to the U.S. for trial, MY OPINION is that it would unite the country instantly, and ignite a shitstorm that would make the anti-war protests look like a family picnic.

I may be wrong though about the uniting thing. But the shitstorm thing, thats a given.

That's what I was thinking. Any country gets its hands on Bin Laden, it has bigger issues to consider than the morality of death penalty, like say, the safety of its citizens.