Posted on 05/09/2011 7:42:01 PM PDT by doug from upland
Rosie O’Donnell: We didn’t give Bin Laden due process
Share posted at 5:54 pm on May 9, 2011 by Allahpundit printer-friendly Via Radio Equalizer,
what’s the biggest news from this clip? That Rosie, like many delicate European flowers of discerning temperaments, thinks Osama deserved better than he got? Or that Rosie now apparently accepts the official narrative of 9/11? Why, it seems like just yesterday that she was musing — on national television — that “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.” Maybe she’s compromised since then and concluded that Bin Laden was an accomplice to the real masterminds.
Eighty percent of Americans say it was right to kill him instead of capture him versus 11 percent who think it was wrong. The crosstabs for that question will be out tonight, but I wonder how many in the majority approve of the killing because (1) Bin Laden deserved to die, (2) Bin Laden posed a physical threat to the SEALs and therefore had to be taken down, or (3) Bin Laden’s capture and trial would have been an endless legal and media clusterfark, with no standard of due process and imprisonment sufficiently high for the self-styled intelligentsia whom Brendan O’Neill tore apart here. Like Jeff Greenfield, I assume it was that third consideration that weighed most heavily on Obama. He knew that most of his base would either happily or unhappily tolerate Bin Laden being shot in the face — ever since he banned enhanced interrogation, they’ve given him carte blanche to go the full Bush on counterterrorism — but that 11 percent would have been a headache for the rest of his presidency. Bin Laden emphatically had it coming, and the SEALs understandably feared that either he or the compound was wired with explosives, and they had already recovered scores of hard drives and thumb drives for intelligence purposes, so they shot him on sight. Problem solved, zero American casualties. Everyone’s happy — almost.
After you listen to the clip, enjoy Hitchens laying into Noam Chomsky for his own quasi-Truther lament over the weekend about Bin Laden’s killing. Apparently, despite endless evidence of Al Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks (Hitchens cites just a few key pieces), the great dissident remains agnostic about whodunnit. Anyone think a trial and conviction, whether here or in the Hague, would have convinced him? Me neither.
Well, it was tough rounding up a jury of his peers, because they were already dead.
>>> Rosie O’Donnell: We didn’t give Bin Laden due process
“Out here, due process is a bullet” (c) John Wayne, The Green Berets
There are better and brighter people than myself in charge of these things.
>> Rosie didn’t give her scale due process.
That is funny.
I regret UBL was not brought to trial in Gitmo, but not because he deserved due process.
Hey Rosie, did you and your pals give the 5000 more little American boys and girls who were butchered TODAY in the abortuaries due process?
Tell that to the victim of 911 families.
Tell her what you really think///
Tell her what you really think///
Tell her what you really think///
Bump
Yeah, I have a problem with that too but the 14th Amendment is clear when it uses the word "citizen" in the first part and then the word " person" after that. It wouldn't have mattered if he were a citizen or not to be afforded due process of law.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
If the word "citizen" were used in both places, we wouldn't currently have an illegal immigration problem. Probably.
First, and most importantly, we lost the ability to interrogate him. We do not know what information that we could have gotten from him had we not killed him. We lost an unbelievable opportunity to gain information and strategy from him. This was crazy.
Second, we take prisoners of war. We don't kill sitting ducks no matter who they are unless there is extenuating circumstances such as an inability to take them alive because of lack of personal, personal weakness or not being able to bring them back because you are in the middle of enemy territory too far away from anywhere you could bring the prisoner. We would not want one of our soldiers or commanders to be blown away if they were caught defenseless and trapped by an enemy, even an enemy who considers them to be a criminal.
Granted Muslims have done horrible things such as hang our men from bridges, but we don't. We take someone as a prisoner unless it is impossible to do it when we have trapped them and they are unarmed. After interrogation and a military trial he should have been hung for the whole world to witness as Saddam Hussein was. We could have brought out many Muslims from other countries who were killed because of him as well as our own victims. Be time we were done it should have been clear to all the world, even most Muslims, that justice was performed upon his execution. Now he is fodder for all of the terrorist out there to stir up hatred and retaliation.
The bottom line is we should have carried out his execution in a decent and orderly way to attest to our civility and the righteousness of our actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.