"Unfortunately, Mr Bin Laden was shot while trying to escape."

To be fair, Nuremberg was a military tribunal. But still, had Hitler survived, he'd have been on trial too.

For once, the fruition of Godwin's Law is actually justified.

You've just got to follow the precendent of these earlier trials and have Americans try them in overseas courts. At least, that's the only way I can get the contrast to still seem logical. Maybe we can mention the precedent to Japan or Germany and try them there?

I think we should try and then imprison him somewhere terrible. Like in a cave in a dry, inhospitable area, absent most comforts of life, regular food deliveries. And then deprive him of the joys of life - wine, women and song and all that. He'll never be able to cope!

@Gwaihir

I agree, we should try and then imprison him somewhere terrible.

But you’ve described how he lives now.

No, prison him in Las Vegas, with a pool, surrounded by beautiful scantily (or naked women), and all he can eat is bacon sandwiches, washed down with alcoholic drinks.

Wine, women and song might be something he can't cope with.

But the again, maybe that's how he lives now...

I think Holder was referring to the zero chance that OBL will be allowed to testify in a public forum as to his past 'arrangements' with the U.S. and its representatives.

Elevating one from the status of 'unlawful combatant' to that 'criminal suspect' is an additional favor. I feel it's enough of a favor to 'unlawful combatants' that they are not summarily executed upon capature as was legal to do at least during WWII:

"The evidence shows that after the capitulation of the armies of Yugoslavia and Greece, both countries were occupied within the meaning of International Law. It shows further that they remained occupied during the period that List was Armed Forces Commander Southeast. It is clear from the record also that the guerrillas participating in the incidents shown by the evidence during this period were not entitled to be classed as lawful belligerents within the rules herein before announced. We agree, therefore, with the contention of the defendant List that the guerrilla fighters with which he contended were not lawful belligerents entitling them to prisoner of war status upon capture. We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece during the time he was Armed Forces Commander Southeast." http://tinyurl.com/yjvdvby

I think that the risk of facing trial, even decades after the event, is a very good restraint on vicious politicals of all varieties. Many of them (especially those that have stashed money in 'safe' places') probably tell themselves that eventually the mood will change and they will be at least not pursued much any more.

So yes, when he runs out of friends and is caught in 30 years time he should be put on trial.

And FWIW I suspect prison is worse than death for Osama bin Laden.

Atty General Holder gives the weirdest testimony, like he has ADD or something.

I can't think of a more fitting punishment than to be forced to listen to the emotional pleas for justice from victims' families, to be represented by a capitalist, to be sentenced by citizens (not "dying with honor" on a battlefield), and finally to spend his remaining years kept alive in a prison, unable to woo adolescents into reverential worship.

Apparently $800 billion isn't enough to be able to secure our country. Be petrified, US citizens, of a man sitting in a courthouse. Our military and law enforcement will be able to do absolutely nothing to stop the juggernaut that is Al Qaeda and their B2 bombers and M1A2 tanks.

Also, the FBI, NSA and CIA need your help! Please donate any spare freedoms you may have left at the box by the door on your way out. Otherwise the terrorists win.

Nice, Gwaihir.

To be fair, it would be a little like trying a hog in a sausage factory, but that's just what congress does best. Instead of trying Bin Ladin in court, he should have to testify in congress until dead.

-Tzimisces

The two precedents from article seem poor becauses:

1) unlike Osama, neither Eichmann nor Saddam could be considered 'unlawful combatants' - the latter even being deposed head of state, commander in chief of its armed forces and later a POW http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5V7KDZ ;
2) at least in the case of Eichmann there was no continuing state of belligerency

Issues like this are difficult for me. I believe strongly in due process, the rights of the accused, etc. But I am also very much against Show Trials.

I think that trials for top-level guys like Hussein and bin Laden are show trials, pure and simple. I don't believe any of our ideals are furthered by having a trial just for the sake of saying "Hey look, we had a trial." Hussein should have been shot in his hiding-hole. Bin Laden should be too.

It's the low-level guys, the Guantanamo types, who need trials and due process. It's easy to imagine somebody with a grudge in Afghanistan telling us "Hey, he's Al Qaeda, you should arrest him!"

Sure, this isn't the neatest of distinctions, and maybe if I thought about it a little more I could come up with something better. I just don't see what purpose it would serve to put someone like Bin Laden on trial when we have already decided he is guilty. It perverts the judicial process.

Does it show weakness and cowardness to not put him on trial? Are we so threatened that we have to teared down our Constitutional principles to be "victorous". Anyone who comes under US control should be afforded the due process rights as if he or she were a citizen, including vigorous defense from an unmolested team, when circumstances allow it.

-Turkey Vulture

Executing surrendering Saddam in his hole would not be legal - US was obliged to give him a trial. Same is unfortunately true for Osama - it does not appear to be legal to just shoot him after Hamadan vs Rumsfeld decision, because Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 3 of Geneva conventions does apply to conflict, and that rules out summary executions.

Assuming perp can be captured alive, why would you want to execute someone whom you can still try exploiting for intelligence, within the limits of US interpretation of Common Article 3?

For difficult issues it sometimes helps to simplify. 'Criminal suspects' - here (gets civilian justice), 'belligerents' - there (gets military justice). The later can be divided into lawful (gets full POW rights), and unlawful (gets barest minimum provided by Common Article 3).

-Kevin Viel

If I understand it correctly, there is no argument whether or not to try. The argument is where (and maybe when) to try and that seems to be a 'proxy' for disputes over what treatment should be accorded. Simplified - whether information may be coerced (would not be usable in civil courts, but may be used before military commission unless they are 'reformed'), and maybe within what timeframe perp should be put before trial.

@ Gwaihir and Mad Hatter:

There's a part of me that thinks that Osama is hiding in plain site, like at a McDonald's checkout window in St. Paul, Minnesota, saying things like "so, would you like fries with that?".

Good point, Brookse. Come to think of it, have you ever seen Osama and Obama in the same place at the same time? I sure haven't.

P_P,

I had hoped it was obvious from the absurdity of trying Osama in Japan or Germany that it was obvious that I was pointing to the absurdity of being afraid to try him on our own soil instead of offering a serious alternate solution. Though I would like to see the diplomatic incident that would be started by asking the Germans to get the Nuremberg trials revved back up to try Osama.

Your mention of illegal combatants was interesting but I think we've hopelessly muddied the waters by mobilizing our regular military to combat them on foreign soil. If you go to war with a group that isn't a legal combatant does going to war with them make them one? I think this sort of discussion devolves into a silly semantic argument that won't be brought back to a truly logical argument even by Herculean efforts. We're already outside the realm where things have any hope of making sense.

To go back a couple of steps, I think we made a big mistake by using the military as if we were fighting a conventional enemy in the first place, but it's hard to go back now. I think the situation is more similar to problems that haven't been faced since the age of Byzantium and Ming China that regularly had to deal with large foreign groups that didn't follow regularized rules of combat. Trying to force the problems posed by terrorism into the type of more regular state relations that have dominated since that era are largely bound to fail and just make everyone involved in the situation look absurd.

Part of due process is determining if the guy you are shooting in the hole is actually Saddam Hussein. This is more of a protection for people hiding in holes or likewise mistaken identity. As far as trial goes, what could they possibly say that wouldn't be refuted by the facts. And if the facts don't refute them, well, than it is something that needs to come out.