web analytics

OBAMA AND OSAMA…

By ATWadmin On June 18th, 2008

obama_osama.jpgI wonder how many of you agree with the suggestion that if Osama bin Laden is captured, he should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts. This is the view of Obama’s foreign policy advisers Jean Francois Kerry and Richard Clarke who told reporters in a conference call yesterday that Bin Laden would benefit from last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision giving foreign terrorism suspects the right to appeal their military detention to civilian courts. Clarke, responding to a question from the Washington Examiner, said that if bin Laden were brought back to the U.S., "the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus."

So, never mind OJ, Osama could yet make a visit to New York – care of the Supreme Court ruling – and would enjoy the support of Obama’s advisers in obtaining a civilian court trial. But how could we ensure it is a FAIR trial, eh? I mean people MAY just hold some prejudicial views about the terror mastermind who brought the twin towers down slaughtering thousands. It’s sure gonna be a toughie if we find the AQ leader.

By contrast John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, insisted bin Laden or the terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have no right appeal in U.S. courts."The individuals we hold at Guantanamo are very, very dangerous people," Scheunemann said. "To give them full access to the federal courts and the criminal justice system is fraught with danger, moving forward, and likely to make America less safe."

Well, looks like America has a clear choice on how it would treat the man who planned the death of thousands of innocent Americans. Vote Obama and get Osama in the civil court. Vote McCain and get him in chains. Your call? Maybe it’s time to reach out and understand Bin Laden – that might be the change Obama has in mind…. 

35 Responses to “OBAMA AND OSAMA…”

  1. The Guantanamo Bay camps are going to be closed soon after November no matter who gets elected.

    McCain is just playing the tough guy to enhance his profile. He doesn’t know what to do with the hypothetical prisoner bin Laden and, like most US leaders, probably trusts the guy will remain at large and save everyone a lot of embarrassment.

  2. What would be wrong in case of Osama bin Laden with a Shoot To Kill Order? There is no jurisdiction in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

  3. Forget Obama, this bloke should be the first black president.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_aIvfFq3BA

  4. >>What would be wrong in case of Osama bin Laden with a Shoot To Kill Order? There is no jurisdiction in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.<<

    Mahons, for the same reason as there is none on the streets of NY – giving armed men the rights of judge, jury and executioner inevitably leads to the wrong people being killed. This is what happened in Northern Ireland, and I doubt if your countrymen are any better trained.

    I mean, you don’t honestly think Bin Laden is really walking around looking like the guy on the right in the picture above?

  5. YO MAHONS!!! You nailed that one buddy. Kill the SOB on site!

    If he ended up in our court system (in Texas please God)that little monster would be lucky to survive incarceration, if he did, the needle would be waiting.

  6. GA – um, no thanks. The pastor is a good, well meaning man, but I’ll pass.

  7. Daphne, he speaks more common sense than I’ve ever heard from Obama.

  8. GA – Obama’s not about sense, he’s about feeling good. I prefer religion and state to stay far, far apart. The moral majority crew have had too much legislative/executive sway over the past fifteen years – they’ve killed the conservative agenda in my opinion.

  9. Noel: I am not suggesting the use of deadly force as a police tool. I am also not suggesting it as a policy against any particular group, because, as you have noted the chance of abuse.

    I am suggesting it be employed by our armed forces on foreign soil against an avowed enemy of our nation on the justification of self defense, national security, and public safety. The target in question has not only confessed to the crime, he has boasted of it. And his actions resulted actual thousands of innocent deaths not merely threatened them. Accordingly, I see no legal obligation to arrest him or often him the opportunity to surrender.

    He has an almost singular distinction is this regard, and I would like our forces to find him and accomodate his often expressed desire for martyrdom.

  10. Obama’s policy makers probably think they are on pretty safe ground in saying what they do.
    Bin Laden may well be dead already. He had an incurable kidney disease two years ago.

    That was a truth-telling sermon GA. Even his statistics, if anywhere near the mark, are damming.

  11. If Bin Laden is ever captured alive, he should pray it’s by the British. That way, he would appear before a British court and would probably get bail, just as his sidekick Qatada has. I imagine there would be no shortage of London "human rights" lawyers eager to defend him.

  12. Daphne, you are, of course, correct. I was being more than a little flippant when I suggested he should be president. An incredible video though. I’ve never heard any African American say anything like that. I found it quite refreshing and optimistic.

  13. Can someone spell out the name of this pastor so I can check him out? I couldn’t get the link for some reason and I’ll google the dude.

    I think Clarke and Kerry are policy advisors as opposed to makers. I’d like to see a transcript of the exchanges. And I would agree with Bernard that Obama may actually be caput for all we know.

  14. Peter -interesting thought, if the British captured him (or say he even pops up in London and surrendered himself, could he be extradicted to the US since he would surely face the death penalty here?).

  15. GA, many conservative black folks echo his thoughts. Heck, lots of black people who don’t consider themselves conservative say some of the same things.

    I think we discussed the pastor here some months back Mahons.
    Remember?

  16. Bite your tongue Peter.

  17. Noel, what’s wrong with Bin Laden taking one between the eyes?

  18. Mahons

    On past form in Britain, I’d say probably not. After all they won’t extradite Qatada to Jordan in case he’s tortured, so why would they send Bin Laden to New York to face old sparky?

  19. Thanks Daphne – I thought it might be him. Lads, the guy is a complete and utter fraud! You can reserach him pretty quickly and find that out.

    Early to the homestead this evening. Good Night to all.

  20. Daphne: Too quick, a belly wound would be better.

  21. >>The target in question has not only confessed to the crime, he has boasted of it.<<

    Indeed. But my point was that he’s hardly likely to go strolling across the Pakistani border looking like this!
    And more importantly in this case, the US troops probably know at least that much, i.e. they know that they don’t know what he looks like; they would therefore probably shoot innocent people by mistake.
    Did you ever wonder why establishing the identity of a criminal is always such a big deal when he’s arrested?

  22. Mahons –

    If bin Laden turned up in London, in London he would stay. The European Convention on Human Rights forbids extradition of prisoners to countries where they’d face the death penalty, whether that’s Jordan or the US.

    Of course, people like me are told sometimes that our dusty old Constitution is out of date, that times change, new realities must be recognised blah blah, but internationalistas can sign pre-emptive and binding documents which are unchanging for all time …

  23. Noel, man up and stop being such a vagina. We’re discussing Bin Laden, it’s okay to let loose with a little antipathy.

  24. David: "I mean people MAY just hold some prejudicial views about the terror mastermind who brought the twin towers down slaughtering thousands. "

    Exactly.

    The Democrats jump up and down about the fact that Bush hasn’t taken in Osama Bin Laden — but by accusing Bush of failing America by not catching this man, aren’t they presuming Osama guilty?

    How is Osama going to have a "fair trial?"

    Such is the "logic" of the craven Democrat party, and the rabid anti-war (re: anti- American) left.

  25. Noel: Find him, check his prints, and shoot him dead in the field. Repeat.

    Patty: A lot of people (not just Democrats) are unhappy with Bush’s efforts to get Osama.

  26. Mahons: Just today, Obama said:

    " The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They’re Osama bin Laden, Al Qaida, and their sponsors, the Taliban."

    Yet, shouldn’t Obama be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law? Are Democrats presuming him guilty without proper trial?

  27. if soldiers ever do find him may they serve us all and just shoot the bastard

  28. How about this? Try him and sentence him to death *in absentia*, in Civil Court. What a great way to bring out all the Islamist apologists from the woodwork and to kick the Truthers in the teeth.

    And Noel, I love your wonderful idea that *soldiers* shouldnt be allowed to shoot people.

    "Mahons, for the same reason as there is none on the streets of NY – giving armed men the rights of judge, jury and executioner inevitably leads to the wrong people being killed."

    Of course there is a shoot to kill policy in NY, same as every other city where police are armed. Its simply not possible to ‘shoot to wound’. The concept is a myth propogated by anti-police campaigners to try and bash them when they have to use their weapons and people inevitably are killed.

  29. The net effect of all this is that Osama bin Laden will not survive any encounter with US forces. There will be a loss of the information that could have been extracted from him. Lives may well be lost as a consequence of that.

  30. Good point Henry. The potential intelligence from Bin Laden about planned future AQ attacks could be enormous.

  31. >>And Noel, I love your wonderful idea that *soldiers* shouldnt be allowed to shoot people.<<

    Well, to be more precise it was that soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to shoot prisoners. But, between you and me, somebody thought of it before me.

  32. Patty: The presumption of innocence at trial is a device for the jury, it is not a requirement that the general population presume someone is innocent before trial.

    Henry: I am not so sure he has so much valuable information. These aren’t nuclear scientists (Thank God). They are simple terrorists. We build them up too much. Plus what intelligence is he going to provide – piss at the south end of the cave where the elevation is lower so it doesn’t flow down into the sleeping area of the cave?

  33. >>Plus what intelligence is he going to provide -<<

    Well, he could at least give us the contact details of this explosive device!

  34. A new front opens on the war on terror.

  35. Mahons: "The presumption of innocence at trial is a device for the jury"

    Aren’t the Democrats – Obama in the quote at 4:05 – actively prejudicing the jury pool by forcefully making the case to the press that Osama is a "terrorist" over and over?

    Doesn’t this make the selection of a jury and a fair trial impossible?