Michael Moore thinks Osama Bin Laden deserved a trial

The founding fathers created a nice framework for our country with the drafting of the Constitution. However, time and time again our country's leaders have ignored specific elements within the Constitution...and we're better for it.

The founding fathers created a nice framework for our country with the drafting of the Constitution. However, time and time again our country's leaders have ignored specific elements within the Constitution...and we're better for it.

I can respect this argument because it recognizes Constitutional provisions rather than completely overlooking them.

But it is a dangerous argument, given that the Constitution protects us from all sorts of possible ugliness.

The Nazis killed many more Americans than bin Laden did. Yet Nazi criminals got trials. Have we become so uncivilized since 1945 that we can no longer live up to our Constitutional ideals of justice by trial?

Definitely a slippery slope when you start selectively applying the principles of the Constitution.

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.

I look at it more like this: if a violation occurs against US laws, the US certainly has the prerogative to take action in accordance with the Constitution, and if the violation is committed by a US citizen, it has a duty to give that citizen their due process rights. However, if the violation occurs in a military or terrorist action, than the US has the option, as long as it is within international agreements, not to accord non-citizens those same rights. I think that, just as we publicly disavow clandestine acts to kill or topple regimes, you can make the argument that the US acted wrongly here. However, in a point of matter of "reality" there was just no way that the US was going to risk any type of lengthy legal maneuverings to take place with Bin Laden at the center.

It really comes down to (and yea this is great foreign policy) all is fair in love and war. Once Bin Laden took aim at the US, he wrote his own obituary rightly or wrongly

I can respect this argument because it recognizes Constitutional provisions rather than completely overlooking them.

But it is a dangerous argument, given that the Constitution protects us from all sorts of possible ugliness.

The Nazis killed many more Americans than bin Laden did. Yet Nazi criminals got trials. Have we become so uncivilized since 1945 that we can no longer live up to our Constitutional ideals of justice by trial?

The ones we hired didn't get trials......

I can respect this argument because it recognizes Constitutional provisions rather than completely overlooking them.

But it is a dangerous argument, given that the Constitution protects us from all sorts of possible ugliness.

The Nazis killed many more Americans than bin Laden did. Yet Nazi criminals got trials. Have we become so uncivilized since 1945 that we can no longer live up to our Constitutional ideals of justice by trial?

Its not 1945 anymore.
Things are different and this is a totally different opponent.... a religious fanatical one.
Comparing Bin Laden to the Nazis is ridiculous.
Put him on trial and you give the Islamic media a freaking heyday and you create X amount more martyrs, wannabes, fanatics etc etc.
Its was a not an uncivilzed act, it was an act of common sense.
Bin Laden was an unlawful combatant which means he doesnt qualify for POW status which means he doesnt get a trial.

Al Qaeda members have been and will be tried all around the world, including here. I'm not sure why we keep comparing Bin Laden's singular death to multiple Nazi trials

I have not read the entire transcripts of the raid, but I think I must ask.
Did OBL make an attempt to surrender that was denied and then summarily executed?

Al Qaeda members have been and will be tried all around the world, including here. I'm not sure why we keep comparing Bin Laden's singular death to multiple Nazi trials

I used the Nazis as an example that heinousness of crimes or controversies of trials are not reasons to deny Constitutional justice. Of course you are correct about the singular/multiple thing.

But you highlight an important point: several posts above describe bin Laden's 9/11 act as primarily a military act. For what country's army was he fighting? None. And we had not declared war. Although warfare certainly ensued later, on 9/11/01 bin Laden's act was a crime. So standards of criminal justice apply.

I continue to be aghast at how readily people here (not you Smootsmack) are so willing to make excuses to throw out the US Constitution. It seems we are less civilized than we were in 1945.

What Bin Laden did was not a crime, it was an act of war....he gets no trial, enemy combatants don't get a trial. (Is there an echo in here?)

I'm amused that someone who should know how many women, children and civilians Bin Laden killed keeps using the word uncivilized when referring to the USA in a Bin laden discussion.