Originally Posted by Zhukov
It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.
Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.
I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.
I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.
George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.
No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.
Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.
This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).
A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?
As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.
A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.
Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.
Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.