If he's taken it most certainly won't be on US soil, he will be a prisoner of war, who have a completely different set of rights from someone arrested here in the states.
Presumably you're referring to the rights listed in the Third Geneva Convention. "Prisoner of War" is defined by Article 4 of that Convention. Osama bin Laden does not meet any of the definitions in Article 4. Therefore, he would not be a prisoner of war if captured. If you think he would, please tell me which one you think he meets. If you're not using the Geneva Convention definition of a PoW, please tell me which rights you're referring to.
Treating him as a common criminal that you would arrest for stealing, or whatever is an absurd notion. The crimes he committed were of a military nature, regardless of the fact that he acted as part of an organization not a country. A military tribunal is more than he deserves, but legally it's what he should get.
Why is it an absurd notion? Is mass-murder committed by Islamic fundamentalists somehow a qualitatively different crime from mass-murder committed by anybody else? If so, what's your legal authority for that proposition? If you're going to have a society run by laws instead of one run by the whim of the ruler (otherwise known as tyranny), you don't get to make the laws up as you go along.
I think the "absurd notion" is that with less serious crimes like theft, you have to prove the person committed them before locking them away, but with the most serious crimes like mass-murder you get to lock someone up and throw away the key, or even execute them, without establishing that the person did anything. Shouldn't we treat more serious crimes in a more serious manner? Or are we going to find people guilty of the most serious crimes imaginable in the same way that a teacher finds children guilty of passing notes in class: by simply saying they are and giving them no chance to appeal?
However I do agree with you that his response was a cop out.
It's a very emotive issue – I don't blame him for not wanting to inflame half of America by giving the correct answer (that he would have to be Mirandized).
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
AG Eric Holder evades questioning
- 17/03/2010 05:34:40 PM
627 Views
Why should he be read miranda rights?
- 17/03/2010 05:50:29 PM
407 Views
Why should location matter when dealing with a borderless threat like al-Qaeda? *NM*
- 17/03/2010 10:20:08 PM
160 Views
You'd rather he walk free on a technicality?
- 17/03/2010 11:28:30 PM
374 Views
Line 1
- 18/03/2010 07:14:56 AM
505 Views
Last I checked, al-Qaeda isn't a party to the Geneva Convention.
- 18/03/2010 09:16:15 AM
434 Views
That only means they are not entitled to its protections - in other words, they are fair game.
- 19/03/2010 10:25:50 PM
370 Views
Well, I guess it depends whether you want to try him, doesn't it?
- 19/03/2010 11:34:34 PM
351 Views
*shrugs*
- 17/03/2010 11:10:47 PM
375 Views
That doesn't seem very logical
- 18/03/2010 12:03:21 AM
456 Views
That is honest and it wouldn't be "dumb" (I assume you actually mean stupid, rather than mute)
- 18/03/2010 12:19:58 AM
421 Views
It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:12:21 AM
321 Views
Re: It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:31:59 AM
428 Views
You do remember "I do not recall" Gonzalez right? *NM*
- 18/03/2010 02:38:48 AM
152 Views
Actually not really, I was out of the country for almost his entire tenure
- 18/03/2010 02:41:13 AM
338 Views
Pretty much there was some political firings of Us Attorneys
- 18/03/2010 02:56:01 AM
375 Views
I remember a little of that
- 18/03/2010 03:16:27 AM
358 Views
Gonzales flat out lied to congress
- 18/03/2010 03:29:14 AM
344 Views
Seems he could answer the question without evasion or producing a soundbite
- 18/03/2010 04:12:04 AM
393 Views
I don't think I agree with that.
- 18/03/2010 02:04:48 PM
365 Views
Fair enough
- 18/03/2010 02:40:42 PM
357 Views
You guys are forgetting the intel aspect.
- 18/03/2010 09:40:53 PM
377 Views
do we know how much he actually knows?
- 18/03/2010 09:49:50 PM
351 Views
Kinda hard to find out if he knows anything if he's dead *NM*
- 18/03/2010 09:56:18 PM
165 Views
that was totally not my question 
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
349 Views
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
349 Views
Most people include congressmen/women don't understand Miranda rights,most people don't know the Law
- 18/03/2010 02:08:10 AM
453 Views
I can understand why he'd want to evade answering.
- 18/03/2010 03:23:04 AM
424 Views
I can understand why statesman would want to avoid painting himself into a corner.
- 29/03/2010 02:26:34 PM
306 Views