FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

[amiquechu 0]

Humiliate and torture the #### out of him first though. Make him spend a month or two begging to be killed before actually doing it.

Never heard of the 8th Amendment, huh?

Doesn't apply to Osama bin Laden.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I tend to think that justice (even when it concerns capital punishment) should be fundamentally impersonal - rather than some vicarious revenge porno-trip.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ignorance is such bliss though - in ignorant world you, can be as viscious and nasty as the 'bad guys' and be immune from condemnation because you are on the side of riteousness.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... some vicarious revenge porno-trip.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ignorance is such bliss though - in ignorant world you, can be as viscious and nasty as the 'bad guys' and be immune from condemnation because you are on the side of riteousness.

Referencing Orwell or 1984 is something of a cliche I'll admit - but perhaps you remember the scene where the government has a "hate hour" for its public enemy number one, where people are encouraged to vent impotent rage and hatred at a TV image.

I don't understand the purpose of that sort of venting - it doesn't serve any rational purpose.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hate is the best motivator.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hate is the best motivator.

Is it though? While it may explain it - it certainly doesn't justify it.

What was suggested in 1984 was that impersonal hatred directed at a intangible figure (to which you have no personal connection) was a form of self-delusion.

[Peikko 1,575]

My personal opinion is that the politicians of the time of 9/11 were extremely nervous of allowing the perpetrators of these heinous acts to remain nameless for very long. I think their fear was that this public outpouring of grief and anger required a channel otherwise it would find outlet in personal acts of vengeance, perhaps against 'arabs' (people that could easily be identified as such) within the US, perhaps against the government itself for failiing to 'act'. It was therefore necessary to quickly identify a 'plausible' tangible enemy for people to direct their outrage at.

It's quite possible that Al Quaida and Bin Laden are responsible - I don't know, but the question of 'hard evidence' is very important and people should be wary of allowing this criminal act to be laid at the door of a person/organization without this necessary evidence regardless of what other acts they have committed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... people should be wary of allowing this criminal act to be laid at the door of a person/organization without this necessary evidence regardless of what other acts they have committed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My personal opinion is that the politicians of the time of 9/11 were extremely nervous of allowing the perpetrators of these heinous acts to remain nameless for very long. I think their fear was that this public outpouring of grief and anger required a channel otherwise it would find outlet in personal acts of vengeance, perhaps against 'arabs' (people that could easily be identified as such) within the US, perhaps against the government itself for failiing to 'act'. It was therefore necessary to quickly identify a 'plausible' tangible enemy for people to direct their outrage at.

It's quite possible that Al Quaida and Bin Laden are responsible - I don't know, but the question of 'hard evidence' is very important and people should be wary of allowing this criminal act to be laid at the door of a person/organization without this necessary evidence regardless of what other acts they have committed.

I thought there was fairly clear evidence of general Al Qaeda involvement - but to my knowledge the only person who has been found guilty in relation to it is Zacarias Moussauoi. There are also several pending cases via the military tribunal system for several people including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, though given the secretive nature of the trials - I wonder how much disclosure will be given to the public domain.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It is also quite possible Bin Laden and his group took the claim for 9/11 public, but in fact were not behind it. This is not at all unusual for terrorist groups. Look at events in Israel, often several groups claim responsibility for terrorist acts, and obviously some or all of them are lying. Although it does seem bizarre there is no direct evidence to tie Bin Laden to 9/11 given all of the 'information' which has since come forward alleging ties to his group.

[slim 1,525]

Humiliate and torture the #### out of him first though. Make him spend a month or two begging to be killed before actually doing it.

Never heard of the 8th Amendment, huh?

Doesn't apply to Osama bin Laden.

So what you're telling me is the government should be able to humiliate and torture the #### out of someone even though they have no direct evidence of their involvement in a crime?

And before you argue that they do have direct evidence of his crimes (the embassy bombings) why didn't people want to humiliate and torture the #### out of him on Sept. 10, 2001?

It's because they didn't know who the hell UBL was. Only after the towers came down and the govt. put a face with the name did the Bill of Rights get thrown out the window. I'm not arguing bin Laden shouldn't be punished for crimes against the U.S., I'm just saying if the govt. has the authority to disregard basic rights protected by the Constitution and international laws (which have since been circumvented by "inventing" new terms; things like "terror suspects" and one of my personal favorites "extraordinary rendition") then they have the legal authority to "select" any one of us here on VJ as "public enemy number one."

If we allow our govt. to disregard rights of the accused and due process, then we in turn waive our rights to protection from illegal search and seizure and ultimately cruel and unusual punishment. Don't think it can happen to you? Why not? Just because today's terror suspect happens to speak Arabic or Pashtu, maybe tomorrow he'll speak Spanish. If you don't see it as possible for average everyday citizens to be stripped of all their rights then you're living in a dream world because by supporting the govt.'s quest to "humiliate and torture the #### out of" someone, you're giving them the right to do that to you too.

But, I forgot. You didn't mastermind a terror attack that killed over 3000 Americans did you?

Did bin Laden?

[amiquechu 0]

Humiliate and torture the #### out of him first though. Make him spend a month or two begging to be killed before actually doing it.

Never heard of the 8th Amendment, huh?

Doesn't apply to Osama bin Laden.

So what you're telling me is the government should be able to humiliate and torture the #### out of someone even though they have no direct evidence of their involvement in a crime?

And before you argue that they do have direct evidence of his crimes (the embassy bombings) why didn't people want to humiliate and torture the #### out of him on Sept. 10, 2001?

It's because they didn't know who the hell UBL was. Only after the towers came down and the govt. put a face with the name did the Bill of Rights get thrown out the window. I'm not arguing bin Laden shouldn't be punished for crimes against the U.S., I'm just saying if the govt. has the authority to disregard basic rights protected by the Constitution and international laws (which have since been circumvented by "inventing" new terms; things like "terror suspects" and one of my personal favorites "extraordinary rendition") then they have the legal authority to "select" any one of us here on VJ as "public enemy number one."

If we allow our govt. to disregard rights of the accused and due process, then we in turn waive our rights to protection from illegal search and seizure and ultimately cruel and unusual punishment. Don't think it can happen to you? Why not? Just because today's terror suspect happens to speak Arabic or Pashtu, maybe tomorrow he'll speak Spanish. If you don't see it as possible for average everyday citizens to be stripped of all their rights then you're living in a dream world because by supporting the govt.'s quest to "humiliate and torture the #### out of" someone, you're giving them the right to do that to you too.

But, I forgot. You didn't mastermind a terror attack that killed over 3000 Americans did you?

Did bin Laden?

Thanks for opening my eyes.