Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
Excellent thoughtful post CRed. I must disagree with your interpretations, though. My understanding of the passage from Amendment 11 which you produced is that it was designed to speak against the idea that the Constitution can be applied in other countries. We can't apply the Constitution in France. But 9/11 was a crime committed in this country so that clause does not apply.
As for bin Laden's assent to governance by the Constitution, things do not work that way. Otherwise any foreigner could come to the USA, break federal law, and claim "You can't try me because I don't assent to your Constitution." Likewise, when I take one of my trips to India, I am subject to Indian law, including the Indian constitution, regardless of my nationality. For bin Laden, his assent was not required since he committed his crime on US soil.
Bin Laden's crime of 9/11 was committed on USA soil. This means that USA law definitely applied, including Constitutional law.
|
Again, I think you make good arguments Lotus, but I still believe that you are off the mark a bit.
When you take a trip to India, I imagine you get a passport, and enter the country on some sort of visa. When you do the paperwork for those documents you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Indian government. You acknowledge that you will be under their laws. Likewise, when US troops deploy, in a peaceful environment, they abide in those countries under agreements between countries. Bin Laden had no thought of acknowledging the US government's authority, or abiding by our laws, when he planned the attacks on our country and our troops overseas.
You reference the Nazi war trials, but those were not held under US jurisdiction, but world governing bodies. They certainly were not given the due process that our justice would have required. So that argument is slightly off base.
Maybe I have seen a skewed side of the question, because of the fait accompli of Bin Laden's death. If the Seals had in fact captured and brought him here, then yes he would have received a trial or military tribunal, as the bombings of 9/11 certainly were a well planned attack against the presence of the US, and the attack on the Pentagon specifically gave the military a reason to handle the justice under our constitution (the sections I cited earlier referenced them.)
Let me put it this way. A man robs a bank, killing two tellers along the way. He is a US citizen. He will get his day in trial when he is captured. As the police make their way in to arrest him, he pulls a gun, the police shoot, he dies. Did he deserve a trial, no - because he did not give himself over to the authorities, and the authorities used justified force in bringing him in to go before the court. Bin Laden may have gotten the benefits of the US judicial process had he at any point turned himself over but he did not, and was shot. Therefore he doesn't get that judicial process priviledge.
For Michael Moore to say that he deserved a trial implies that he would not have been given one if he had been brought in to the country, but if you make a special military team find you in the middle of the night, you aren't given that benefit of the doubt.