Britain says it won't hand over bin Laden if he faces execution in the US

this could be a problem.... i dont know if the united states would make assurances that a man that killed 6,000 people would not face the death penalty

 

Of course, if Britain captured bin Laden and then refused to turn him over to us, wouldn't they then be harboring a terrorist? And wouldn't we then be obligated to do the same thing to Britain as we have been doing to Afganistan?

Sure, we wouldn't do that, but seems like we should.

 

I'm actually impressed by this. Britain (and most of Europe) is firmly against the death penalty, and while I would rather they just give us Bin Ladin (should they get him), good for them for standing up for their principles.

 

Actually Britain keeping bin Laden wouldn't be harboring a fugitive because obviously they wouldn't let him do anything dangerous. As for Britain standing up for their principle I say let them have him and keep him locked up and let every nut in the world bomb them or terrorize him while trying to get bin Laden released. I'd feel better if he's locked up there then have him here and have every nut hanging around.

 

In all likelihood, if a SAS / SBS team cornered bin Laden they'd call the Green Berets to come and 'capture' him, or he'd just die in a firefight with the Brits, which would be fine too. Even the Brits wouldn't let him get out of this alive; this announcement is meant to appease those liberal elements of their govt/populace which are against the death penalty (large majority there).

If they 'caught' him without killing him, they'd just keep him on ice until our people got there. And then we would kill him.

Anyone who thinks that our troops have orders to take him alive is deluding themselves. And he won't allow himself to be caught alive anyway...

 

How could Osama NOT get the death penalty?

Let's say Osama did his crap in London. What would they do? Make him watch a soccer match?

 

<B>Let's say Osama did his crap in London. What would they do? Make him watch a soccer match?</B>

Ever heard of life-in-prison?

Most industrialized countries don't have the death penalty, for any crime.

 

Life in prison is a joke.

OBL deserves to die. How can anyone have remorse to do so?

 

I will bet anyone here $100 that Osama doesn't come out of this alive. I'd bet more, but I'm poor, and I never bet more than I can afford...

$100. Anyone?

 

thats a vague bet. Its just as likely that we'll never catch him.

 

OK, how's this: $100 he's dead one year from today. Less vague?

He's surrounded in the Tora Bora region. I don't think he'll escape to Pakistan, and even if he does he'll be caught there. His options are rapidly dwindling.

There's always the chance that he makes it to Pakistan and is caught by Pakistani authorities, who might not kill him. So, bet?

 

Actualy, I'm pretty sure it'll never get even that far. Either he'll die from some non-specific method like aerial bombing or artillary, or he'll go by some grand suicide. I doubt any soldier on the ground will ever see him in the sights and have to choose between pulling the trigger or taking captives.

 

BTW, is it me, or does it seem odd that the army doesn't have any sort of 'disposable' equivelant to the drone aircraft that they can send into tunnel things? Given the history lesson of Vietnam, and all the cool technologies like 'Land Warrior' you think they'd at least have something in development.

 

Well, since "harboring" means to give shelter to or provide a place, home or habitat for, I think that they would be harboring him if they refused to hand him over.

And letting him live could be letting him do something dangerous. Who's to say that he couldn't plan and execute terrorist acts from British prisons (or American prisons for that matter)? Can they legally keep him from ever talking to anyone or sending messages (could we, for that matter)?

 

Ottomaton:

Actually, DARPA has a number of micro UAV projects running right now; a micro UAV is basically a small remote-controlled airplane-type vehicle about the size of your hand that carries a number of payloads: one project carries an explosive charge about the size of a grenade's payload, another carries a poison injector, one carries a pistol-calibre weapon, several carry different types of cameras (thermal / IIR, telescopic, night vision, etc). These are not really airplanes in the traditional sense, they act more like mini-hovercraft; they could easily be piloted through a 10-story office building. They'd be perfect in caves like this (they're designed with urban and underground warfare in mind), but unfortunately they're still in the testing stages... This war came too early for them.

But who knows, maybe DARPA will decide to do some field testing...

Osama - it actually is more likely that he'll be blown to bits by a lucky bomb than actually getting caught or shot. But he would not commit suicide unless it was a suicide charge - suicide is expressly forbidden in Islam, and he would go to hell. He would, however, go to heaven if he made a suicide charge - go down fighting, which I'd expect him to do... In his mind at least.

If worse comes to worst, his bodyguards have orders to shoot him if it appears that he is about to be captured. He will not be taken alive.

 

I wouldn't classify imprisonment as "harboring". In that case, we are harboring a large number of terrorists ourselves...

Yes, both they and we can and do. We have a handful of maximum security facilities for lifers where they are kept incommunicado, and the Brits are apparently pretty good at keeping their terrorists out of touch with the rest of the world (the IRA has forced them to learn how). It is perfectly legal.

But Osama will not be caught alive. It is nearly impossible to capture and restrain an armed individual who does not want to be caught and whi is willing to die, let alone one that has another thousand or so armed individuals guarding him who are also willing to die...

 

Hehe... treeman and I are in complete agreement here.

1. There's absolutely no way that imprisonment is "harboring." Harboring implies allowing a certain amount of freedom of action. The refusal to extradite criminals to nations that have a death penalty is nothing new. And I've never heard it termed as such.

2. I sincerely doubt Great Britain has *any* desire to have Osama in their country. That would practically be an invitation for radical nuts to launch plots to blackmail their nation. If they find him, they'll either kill him in combat or wait for the US to do so.

A trial of Osama bin Laden would be a disaster. If it was done behind closed doors, then everyone would accuse us of being authoritarian and rigging the trial. If it was public, it'd compromise national security and devolve into a circus. And there *would* be terrorist plots. Like, "free Osama or we crash this plane into the Transco Tower!"

Better if he died quietly with a bullet in his brain.

 

I hope a Muslim shoots his ass. No point in making a martyr out of him.

 

Just wanted to make sure I saw that right.

It's also nice to know that you're at least thinking about national security when it comes to legal issues... Do you think he'd earn a military tribunal if actually caught?

I would gladly condone giving $25mil to the muslim that did it...