Cail wrote:Tjol wrote:Well, you're wronger? OBL does not deserve, nor is he entitled to, the same treatment as a US citizen. It is demonstrable in fact, that by his actions against the US, that he would no longer be a US citizen based upon his actions. Look up the penalty for treason. Let me know how your argument holds up even if we pretend OBL is no different than an American citizen in the rights he's entitled to.
Really? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that if he was a US citizen, he'd be arrested and tried in court for treason. And I'm not aware of anything anyone can do which would terminate their citizenship unless they renounce it.
If you participate in foreign military, your citizenship can be revoked I believe. Isn't that what the small print on your passport says?
Tjol wrote:No-fly zone, agreed to by Saddam?
That's not a crime against US soldier, that was a violation of a UN resolution.
He was firing at us military planes. A police officer can sue a criminal for damages, can he not? As much as he's a part of the police force, he is also an individual.
Tjol wrote:We had no standing to try Saddam. It would have been nice if he'd been tried by the UN, but that was never going to happen.
We have as much standing to try Saddam as we do in providing OBL a civil trial. Which was pretty much my point. If you want to invent rights for foreign nationals, I can invent rights to prosecution by the US military. It's all in the land of make believe rather than in the land of reality.
Wrong again. Saddam was no threat to the US, and had committed no crimes against the US. But I'd sure like to know on what basis you believe that only Americans have rights.
I don't think that makes me wrong. You seem to be flip flopping on what it is that makes a person entitled to a trial. But lets go with your latest version. If being a threat is what entitles a person to civil trial, Saddam certianly threatened George Bush's life in such a fashion as is illegal under U.S. law.
Everyone in the US, regardless of citizenship status, is accorded constitutional protections. Why would anyone not physically within the borders not be protected from our government (which is the function of the Bill of Rights) not enjoy those same protections?
So Pakistan is now US soil? This is an utterly specious point.
A person who is not a US citizen and within our borders without our permission would not have rights, because they were not here with our permission. If they were here with our permission, the US would have no reason not to be hospitable. But a foreign national is not entitled to the social benefits afforded to American citizens, so they do not have the same rights as we have, even if invited.
But all of that is irrelevant, it has zero to do with OBL's entitlement to a trial when he resists capture on foreign soil.
Tjol wrote:Japan committed crimes against our country in WW2, we did not offer them a trial. Heck, here's a foreign precedent for you... Germany committed crimes against Russia in WW2, and Russia responded militarily, without a civil trial. Whether you wish to argue the US, or international precedent, you have not established any basis by which OBL was entitled to a civil trial in the US.
If you recall, there was that trial at Nuremberg for Nazi war criminals. And our terms of surrender that we dictated to the Japanese didn't include trying their soldiers and command staff for war crimes. I believe that was a mistake, but that was 66 years ago and I didn't have any say in it.
Russia did not wait for the trial, it can be said in some fashion that the US did not either. If we're going to stretch definitions, the civillians of Dresden were flame bombed without a civil trial. Japan was twice bombed with atomic weapons without a civil trial. See the funny thing is, in violent confrontations, people aren't civil. Sherman was not put on trial for 'war crimes' as they would now be called after the civil war. Nor was Grant. Nor was Robert E. Lee. Stonewall Jackson was not given a trial before being shot in battle.
I can throw the net wider over the history of the world when it comes to conduct in warfare, but it can be kept as narrow as the US alone, and still the US has never conducted warfare in such a fashion as you and Eric Holder might prefer. It's absurd to demand that now, when all established precedent is quite contrary to those demands.