ive read a few articles, even the libs on msnbc agree it would have been complicated if we took him alive. who would defend him, the long agony of the trial, publicity hound attorneys, where would he be buried, crazies would be rallying around the world for him, would he be brouhgt on US soil, to get a fair defense, he would have to be allowed access to confidential documents, etc. The simple execution and subsequent dump at sea was the best solution IMO. i think obama called this one right.

Papachristou wrote:

the WH should have kept their mouth shut about the whole thing IMO. obamas speech was fine but they keep releasing details then changing them. its no ones business but ours. no one is going to say a d@mn word to us about it. Like you said, he resisted and was shot in the process. end of story, no more details, no photos, nothing. Also i hear he was shot across the face which would follow the resisting storyline.

what are you going to do? try the USA in international court? good luck!

Papachristou wrote:

Worth discussing is what is Pakistan's role with Bin Laden's location.

HockeyDad wrote:

A lot of the misinformation has been from the press who have assumed stuff, or the information came before the President spoke and it's still out there. Whle they were all live on tv waiting for him to talk people were saying all sorts of crap.

FuzzNJ wrote:

I watched the presidents press secretary and brennan live say that OBLs wife was killed, she was used as a sheild (although they did not say if it was choice or force) etc. It was monday after the Prez spoke. There was no press filter involved. It was misinformation directly from the admin that has now been corrected. Apparently Brennan confused the chick downstairs with obls chick upstairs.

But they really should not be releasing any of this info. We may want to know (I do). But we shouldn't. We should give zero info out.

teedubbya wrote:

good ol cloak and dagger is a dying thing. The brits used to be great at it.... back when they were actually an empire. It was pretty cool that a little crappy rock could controll so much of the world.

teedubbya wrote:

I saw Brennan say wrong things too, apparently wrong things. I did not see Carney say those things though. So yeah, but there was some misinformation given out by the media before the President spoke that is still being taken as fact in some circles because I've seen it woven into conspiracy theories already. ;)

FuzzNJ wrote:

Remember when the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior? Good times.....good times!

HockeyDad wrote:

before the Prez by the media? I saw after the Prez by the admin.

teedubbya wrote:

before the Prez by the media? I saw after the Prez by the admin.

teedubbya wrote:

DO NOT question his facts!

HockeyDad wrote:

You getting a bit frustrated HD? Losing your edge.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Yes, patriot act too. I am still against that also. Bush taking away Habeous Corpus, bad.

I believe I did say I was against the war in Iraq, and I did 'rail about it', and 'against a sitting president'. I see the latter being done daily here.

Bush did NOT have it right. He invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and diverted resources that should have been used to get the terrorists. 10's of thousands, and probably 100's of thousands of people died. 10's of thousands of our men and women are injured for life, over 4 thousand killed for that diversion. I did not change my mind about any of it, none, zero, zilch. Understand?

There are not enough differences between Obama and Bush for my liking, but there are many.

FuzzNJ wrote:

And...there...we...go. Fuzz is back to his liberal idiocy. How may posts that it finally take?

The reason why Habeous Corpus does not exist so that we can continue to interrogate people like KSM without continuious legal intervention from idiot liberal saps like yourself. KSM is not a legitimate enemy combatant under the Geneva Convention, he is not a US citizen. He is essential a walking side of beef. He has no rights.

jpotts wrote:

Just like waterboarding is OK, which we now are finding out got us started down the path to killing Osama bin Laden.

jpotts wrote:

However, you revel in the death of a man, but condemn the people and the methods that facilitated his assassination. And now you want to join in on the festivities?

jpotts wrote:

If you had any principles whatsoever, you'd be OUTRAGED that the man was not given a trial, allowed to defend himself, or even be granted a lawyer. After all, you've been the one spouting all of this "we're better than that" crap when it came to Gitmo, interrogations, and all of your inane BS.

jpotts wrote:

At the very least, you'd garner more respect by sticking to your alleged principles. However, you've now made it real clear that you've never had any in the first place.

jpotts wrote:

The fact is, I have more respect for a guy like Rickamaven - who voted for Idi Amin Jr., and then was outraged when he got Bush Redux - because he's actually fairly consistent. He may be a loon, but he's consistent with his beliefs. He may be wrong, but he sticks to his guns for the most part.

jpotts wrote:

You, on the other hand, are such an attention-craving little child, you'll throw what you claim to believe overboard, just so you can either claim some laughable sort of victory, or join in on the festivities.

In short: you're nothing more than a political hack. Your principles are a joke. Everything you claim to believe in is a lie.

At least the rest of us were consistant. Terrorists are little more than spies. The don't have the rights of enemy combatants, and they are not citizens of the US. If apprehended, they have the rights of a sirloin steak. You can "torture" them, hold them indefinately, and blow their head off if you can get a SEAL team in to do so. End of discussion.

So spare us all of your intellectual gymnastics (which assumes you have enough brain cells for it to be qualified as actual intellectual activity). We pretty much see you for what you are: a fraud.

jpotts wrote:

So, if that is all true, why would be need to get rid of Habeous Corpus?

FuzzNJ wrote:

I guess you are talking about water-boarding here? Yes, I am against torture, but again, it didn't facilitate his killing, assasination is elevating bin Laden to a level I'm not willing to do. As for the method of the mission, I am all for it and have found it to be much more preferable than invading entire countries.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Yes, I have said we are better than that, in regards to torture, not a trial for bin Laden. It is also preferable to abide by the rule of law than to hold prisoners without charging them with anything forever. It is not America's style, reputation nor part of our history.

FuzzNJ wrote:

blah blah blah,

FuzzNJ wrote:

We didn't, doorknob. The law on the exclusions to Habeous Corpus are very explicit. Lincoln did the exact same thing during the Civil War.

If you want to do something to which Habeous Corpus still applies, don't run around claiming you're going to violently overthrow the United States government.

Nice try...fraud...

Leon Panetta already admitted that water-boarding and other "extreme" interrogation methods were responsible for the information that helped locate Osama bin Laden.

You should try reading a paper some time...fraud...

Yes, because holding prisoners for an extended time is far less preferable to killing them. In fact, we're doing them a favor by killing them, right Fuzz?

(Seriously, you are such a dumba**.)

You cannot run around and claim that torture is bad, and extended imprisonment is bad because of someone's alleged "rights", and then revel in the execution of a member of their very same community without trial. Last time I checked, a right to trial, and a right to face ones accuser is a fundamental human right.

Then again, I'm the guy saying that they have no rights, and for specific enumerated reasons. So I'm the one being consistent here. All you can do is put out a bunch weaselly, albeit incoherent, double-talk.

Again: you are a fraud. And it seems to be that you're not even smart enough to see that.

That's probably the smartest thing you've probably said in your previous post.

jpotts wrote: