pretty simple question there. let's suppose we actually captured Osama alive and our troops didn't kill him on sight.

Could Osama bin Laden actually get a fair trial in the United States? And, by "fair," I mean that if he were truly innocent of whatever charges were brought against him, do you think that he could be found "not guilty?"



I'll go ahead and answer and say that I don't think he could get a fair trial here. Of course, I doubt he would make it out of his hole alive, either, cause I am fairly certain that one of our GIs would blow his fucking head off, or if he actually were taken alive, something would happen to him on the way to prison/gitmo/waterboard.

Anyway, have at it.

9/18/2008 2:08:35 AM

He's not innocent so no one would have a problem giving him a trial.

9/18/2008 4:37:56 AM

Are you crazy? Do you really think we would showboat him on national tv and add fuel to the fire when it's much easier for us to "accidentally" pop a cap in his head in some cave?

9/18/2008 4:41:36 AM

I would actually want to hear what he had to say.

OMG don't burn me at the stake!

9/18/2008 8:07:28 AM

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM. Reason : but no...no fair trial anywhere in US]

9/18/2008 11:11:51 AM

He wouldn't get a jury trial. He'd be in front of a military tribunal. In reality though, he won't give himself up to be made a fool of. He'll end up going out a "martyr."

9/18/2008 11:45:47 AM

I could see there being a show trial (like Nuremburg).

9/18/2008 11:51:21 AM

Well, there's a question - was one of the most historically similar tribunals - Nuremburg - a fair trial? Was it important that it was fair, or simply that it was an open exposure of the crimes of the Nazi regime? Would it thus similarly be important if a trial of OBL was fair - or simply an open examination of the crimes of al-Qaida?

9/18/2008 11:53:20 AM

I think they would do this if they could have a trial without the defendant being allowed to speak.

9/18/2008 11:58:17 AM

^I think Nuremberg turned out to be pretty fair. We didn't just hang every high-ranking Nazi we could get our hands on, and some (Speer leaps to mind) probably got off easy. That said, fairness probably wasn't the most important thing. Not only was exposing the crimes necessary, but the eradication of key members of the Nazi leadership was likely necessary for stability. I don't put a lot of faith in the prisons holding them, since several escaped and others received aid from their guards, even American ones (Goering, for example).

I don't think Osama could get a fair trial, not even so much because of the juries or tribunals but because he wouldn't play the game. He wouldn't seek an effective lawyer; if assigned one, he would fire him. He has no interest in his innocence or the legal system. He'd rant and rave every chance he got (kind of like Saddam did) until the judge found some way to make him shut up.

9/18/2008 12:07:23 PM

I honestly would not be surprised if Osama has already been killed or is secretly being held at some CIA/MILITARy prison. There is three rationales and benefits to this.

1.) If it became publically known that Osama was killed by US forces he would be seen as a martyr rallying more towel-heads to the extremist cause. A similar action would occur if he was publically being held; during this time everybody would want to get their two cents in on how Osama should be punished and who should try/incarcerate him. You would even have the whiny liberals bitching about Osama's rights in prison too.

2.) Osama being at large gives the people here in the US an enemy on the battlefront to hate; which helps leverage the gov't power to use military support.

3.) If secretly caputured we could use torture enhanced interrogation techniques to get information out of him about Al Qaeda operations.


Either way rather if he's hinding in the mountains, dead, or sitting in some saudi palace laughing at our attempts to find him; I do not think he has much power or control over the direction or actions of Al Qaeda anymore.

9/18/2008 12:28:40 PM

fair trial? fuck that. pop a cap in his ass.

9/18/2008 12:38:30 PM

trial for what though?

he didn't mastermine any of the attacks.

he didn't order any of the attacks.

he wasn't involved in any of the attacks.

the only evidence available are his videos after the fact.

all I can think of are conspiracy type charges.

9/18/2008 8:09:27 PM

Quote :

"He's not innocent so no one would have a problem giving him a trial."

in other words, no he couldnt get a fair trial

9/18/2008 8:14:22 PM

making threats via video tape.

jury trials are of peers. He has no peers in the USA. So no jury trial.

someone already stated this

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : !]

9/18/2008 8:14:29 PM

Maybe if William Ayers was the judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

9/19/2008 7:32:29 AM

wow I'm already starting to mistake obama for osama, not good for barrack

9/20/2008 2:35:45 PM

^ well could obama receive a fair trial in the US (for any alleged crime)? as a black man, he can't.

9/20/2008 3:27:22 PM

hey, OJ proved that wrong

9/20/2008 4:02:05 PM

no, that's wasn't fair trial either. he wasn't convicted, was he?

9/20/2008 4:16:24 PM

i'm not sure that getting the "wrong" verdict is "unfair," though. I think it's only unfair when an innocent man is found guilty, in the sense that it is unfair to the defendant.

9/20/2008 4:27:29 PM

No. He is already guilty by his own admission. I do not believe there is anyone who would not feel he is guilty. If you do you are a moron.

9/21/2008 12:08:39 AM

^ and I think that is part of the problem. Imagine that he actually was innocent. Take a major stretch here, but imagine it. Even with that, he would still be found guilty.

9/21/2008 12:19:02 AM