Now we have King George in the USA..proof

I offered proof.

You didn't accept my proof.

Now YOU have to debunk it.

that's how that works, BB

is anything in this world ever certain?

I tried to debunk it, but couldn't find any other mention as evidenced by my search. hard to debunk that which you can't find

Ahh, so you're saying that kneejerk reactionary pseudojustice is better than the tedious, upright process of actual Justice.

Gotcha.

You should know that the entire body of law is not embodied in the constitution. Trials in absence of a defendent do occur. If we knew of someone we thought we could convict of anything, there would be a trial for it even if they are not present. The reason we have these in the first place is to ensure extradition can legally take place. The accused can then request a retrial with new evidence once we have him should he want to.

To that end, if we thought we could really pin anything on Osama, he'd have had a trial by now. It wouldn't matter if we had him or not. Also, getting him would be far, far easier if we already had a completed trial with a guilty verdict to wave at whoever knows where he is (because we can then prosecute and legally take action against those that hide him).

and speaking of kneejerk reactions.....

Jeeeeez. Do you even know how to do research?

In the world of law, yes, everything can easily become certain. Particularly, in investigation, you can become certain you won't find anything. As we haven't really investigated anything, we can't yet be certain we won't find anything.

It's the Ann Coulter school of research. Her references in her book go something like "Search engine showing no results for (insert particularly narrow topic here)".

Yes I know that the entire body of law is not within the Constitution, I did say that they do happen, however extradition is not the main reason. Extradition can be achieved by presenting the evidence to the Nation/State who then decides wether it is suffiecient to extradite the accused, then the trials take place. Now if we were to convict Osama in absentia the holding country will just say it is an unjust verdict, or that he didn't break one of thier laws.

hmm let me see what my search was, oh yeah Bush and the Nazis, which is what we were discussing isn't it? now whats narrow about that? now you notice the dates in your article right? 1926 till 1942, thats all well and good except the Nazis didn't come to power till late in 1930. Now you need anymore proof?

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm

If the country is a UN country, which is admittedly doubtful but if they are, they would have to argue the verdict before the UN. Whether the person broke a law of that country or not has nothing to do with extradition.

Osama is the "Grey Fox" or "Dread Pirate Roberts" of the fundamentalist revolutionary world, I'd wager. When one gets killed, another claims the position, creating the image of an invincible and undefeatable leader. We've probably killed Osama about 400 times at this point.

oh for fuck's sake. I weep for this nation.

Research the claims made in the article.


Typing Bush and Nazi into a "yahoo" search engine isn't investigation

read the rest of that post there Kendra

I did. what's your point?

you reread it recently?

No, I was politically ignorant until recently. If I had known about them from 1993-2001, I would have also complained about signing statements. Now that I am aware that Executive Orders can "make law", I don't like those either whether a Democrat or Republican uses them. I fully support a President using legal power to enforce the law and protect the country but the Presidency has to have limits. If a Democrat were doing this, I would also be complaining, trust me.

fair enough, at least your equal oppurtunity then

The point though, is that a trial will give you much more credible evidence due to the rules surrounding presenting evidence in a trial. Even if the country that has him refuses to give him up, you still have evidence to present to the world to pressure that country into giving him up (we call this diplomacy). There is no reason to believe a trial would not help us. And if you do have reason to believe a trial would hinder capturing Osama, then you somehow have knowledge that it would be difficult to convict him.

yes --what is your point?

how can you be factual with wrong dates? those are kind of important aren't they?

What do you think your dates prove?


What is your point??

to be honest I don't think it will ever come to trial, and we will never capture him. I think he is too committed to be caught and will probably fight to the death.

He's dead, Jim.

I think it also has to do with what the American People will tolerate.

If a President draws too much heat by these sorts of things, that's what causes the outrage and judgment. If a President does so from time to time, but only when absolutely necessary, the decisions are often ignored or even lauded.