10 thoughts on “McCain: No Habeas for Osama, ‘He Will Be Executed’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. “Imagined” Muslim grievances? Agree or disagree with bin Ladin, by all means, but there’s nothing mysterious or imaginary about what he has against the West, specifically the US. He made it quite clear, and it has nothing to do with Bush’s truly imaginary attribution of jealousy over Western freedoms. It’s about Western, again specifically US, occupation of Muslim countries (specifically Saudi Arabia at the time), support of authoritarian regimes, greed for oil… no need to go on I think.

    What the US has done in Afghanistan and Iraq has elements of revenge, but I don’t see the vengeance in what Al Qaida has done. Nor for that matter do I see much difference between their tactics and those of the US… except that the US labels its attacks on civilians as ‘unintended collateral damage’.

    The US doesn’t target civilians… and of course, the US doesn’t ‘do’ torture either… or murder prisoners, or pronounce sentence before trial, as McCain is proposing.

  2. i’m not convinced that bin Laden is alive, and that he’s not lying under a pile of rubble in a cave somewhere. Just because the CIA rolls out a video or audio tape and says “It’s him” doesn’t make it so. The people who work in special effects departments in movie studios will tell you that absolutely anything can be faked.

    But let’s suppose that bin Laden is alive and that he’s captured; he deserves his day in court, with an initial presumption of innocence, no less than anyone else. Interestingly, in 2001 the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. government if it would provide evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks; the U.S. government refused to do so, and my intuition tells me that its case against bin Laden is circumstantial at best.

  3. Why are we trying to kill Bin Laden? We should negotiate with him and address his legitimate grievances. If we can talk with Iran, we can talk with Bin Ladem

  4. Seriously, if Israel can talk with Hamas, why cant the US talk with bin Laden? Hamas has in its charter that it desires the destruction of Israel, but that hasnt stopped Israel from talking with it. Al Qaeda does not call for the destruction of the US-why not address its grievances by withdrawing from Muslim lands and ending support to Israel? Many Americans are sick and tired of taking off their shoes at the airport and not being able to bring their favorite liquers on board. Why not make peace with Iran and al Qaeda and dump Israel? Better jaw-jaw than war-war

  5. @A.N.: Because there’s nothing to talk about with Bin Laden. And you are wrong–Al Qaeda does wish the destruction of the west including the U.S. Why do you think they attacked the WTC? Hamas isn’t exactly mother’s milk, but Al Qaeda is far worse.

    Iran is a far diff. story. It is not Al Qaeda as you seem to imply. It is a nation with its own set of interests that are far diff. than Al Qaeda. We have never attempted a serious diplomatic initiative with Iran. If we did we might be surprised at the result.

  6. As the left has argued many times-one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Most of the world, especially the Islamic world considers Osama a freedom fighter, trying to stop the US support of corrupt dictatorial regimes and end support of israel. Israel has negotiated with Hamas, which supports killing of Israeli civilians as part of resistance, which after all, is enshrined in the UN charter. Why is the destruction of the WTC any different, except for scale, than the blowing up of the Park Hotel. I personally look forward to going to the airport without taking off my shoes, and carrying my favorite grappa on board without having the airlines lose it. What I am saying is not much different that what Walt and Mearsheimer are saying-support of Israel is not worth the inconvenience that the so called war on terror is inflicting on me

  7. @A.N.:

    Because there is a territorial struggle bet. the Palestinians & Israelis over their future in which each people has a legitimate claim to self-determination, while ea. seems intent on denying legitimacy to the other’s claim. As for Al Qaeda, its attack on the U.S. involves no legitimate claim that I can determine other than revenge for alleged U.S. insults against Arab nations & Islam.

    If the I-P conflict was resolved it would mean one less tool in Al Qaeda’s repetoire to stir up hostility both toward Israel and the west in general.

  8. Richard Silverstein Actually what those people really want is our tanks and bases and bombs out of their land. But you are right on Iran mostly, but it’s worth mentioning recently declassified operation Ajax which was the beta test if you will for operation gladio.

    With its perfection the world was treated to the same C.I.A/MI5 sponsored terrorism that we used on Iran.


  9. Bin Laden, in an apparent retort to our vermin-in-chief asked in one of his speeches “If we hate freedom so much, why didn’t we attack Sweden?”

    That question should be put to every pro-America goon because of course, they can not answer it. Everyone knows why Al Qaida attacked the US, it’s beyond obvious. Further, it must be stated that by US standards, they did nothing wrong. The US declares that any nation harboring terrorists is subject to blistering attack and any civilians killed in such an attack are a matter of indifference. No country on earth better satisfies such criteria than the United States.

    Not only have we zero right to assassinate Bin Laden, we have no try him in a court of law or even to pursue him, unless we plan to hang him alongside Bush, Condoleza Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. This is a central notion in international law—you have to apply standards of justice equally and fairly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link