Burden of proof of Laden's responsability for 911.

Post Reply New Topic

well, as I see that everyone rejoys for his dead, and people saying that he deserved to die, some thoughts come to my mind.

First, laymen tend to believe whatever the media says or whatever belief is seem popular, as this is noted when people say he deserved to die, because they are being certain that he is responsable for the 911 attacks, the question is, how much certainty should we really have towards it, considering the level of evidence there is?

Note: Before people start jumping on me, which I pressume they would, don't confuse this with conspiracy theories, as this is about evidence, and how much of evidence is necessary to make a conclusion, and how much of evidence there is.

Secondly, the infamous Fnord's quote: "Evidence, Please?"
Yeah, I'm a layman when it comes to the law and all that, but this is something that I actually wonder, how much evidence there is for us to believe the guy is responsable for the 911 attacks and how much is necessary to make the conclusion? I mean, if I'm not wrong, from what I gather, it seems to be all circumstantial, doesn't it? and at least, from the US civil courts standpoint, circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict someone.

Not to mention that he was never tried, it really is a shame that he was killed right there, rather than being captured and doing justice, the proper way, similar to as it was with Saddam Hussein.

Good point.

And to the conspiracy theorists out there, please don't ruin this thread with your nutty theories. I'm personally interested in what actual evidence we have for him being responsible for the 911 damage.

I thought we'd established that Kahlid Sheik Mohammed was "responsible" for 9/11.

At the same time, we know that OBL was at least an organizer and figurehead of a movement that at the very least promoted violence that led to the loss of several lives in attacks other than 9/11.

So if you think he didn't have it coming, tell me why.

He admitted it. And information on Bin Ladin's laptop was later used to convict the shoebomber. Tracking one of KSMs buddies is how they found OBL.

And it's not like he just appeared on 9/11. He'd been at war with the US for years and made no secret of it. He wasnt shy.

There is probably none. We have him issuing videos taking credit for it. But if I remember correctly, many groups did take credit for 9/11.

It is not proper and just if it is a farce. There was no way he could get anything but the death penalty. You might as well just killed him where you found him, since he was going to die anyway.

He took credit for it, the hijackers were part of his organization... the list goes on

All of his men claim he's the chief. He says he's the chief. The US has been gathering intelligence on him for almost 20 years showing he's the chief. Other arab nations say he's the AQ chief. He goes to afghanistan to train terrorists after fleeing Sudan and various other locations. He admits what he is doing and calls for holy war. He takes credit again and again.

Evidence is found on his laptop after a battle. AQ kept detailed records of their structure, activities and plans, etc, etc.

I guess you could deny reality and say that you know better than everyone. Sure. The internet is full of that.

If a list goes on, there is no reason to stop after two reasons.

Anyway, a trial would have been a formality and Osama would have definitely gotten Death Penalty, that makes me wonder what the reason not to have a trial is...

Plus he could have been interrogated and make his benefactors fall with him.

QFT

I seem to recall a specific video in which he discusses the attacks with a cohort, remarking that he hadn't thought that the building would actually collapse, but was pleasantly surprised that they did.

It is completely unethical to even presume you are having a trial that already has convicted a person. It is bad enough with the frivolous lawsuits and the judicial branch being completely political now.

Torture does not work as well as people think. He would be too far gone for these tactics and other interrogation techniques to work.

well, the issue is that that alone, doesn't weight, I mean, I know that he admitted on videoclips, but that doesn't really prove any crime, as I believe the possibility goes that any muslim on those regions can take credit for something "awesome" as destroying the US.


hmmm, ok,, I believe that weights more.....


Yeah, but that is circumstantial.


I see, well, as I said, I'm no legal expert, it does look like this evidence weights more against him, but still, I can ask how strong this evidence is, and if it is that strong as it looks like, I mean, if there is a defense on this, I believe it can be claimed that computer data can be manipulated, etc. as this seems a bit of an indirect evidence, or is it not?


I guess I could as anyone else here could, but I am not doing that, what I am doing here is asking for a legal *and* empirical justification, I mean, Obama said "the world is a better place with him being dead", that implies the certainty that he is guilty of the crime, but he hasn't been tried formally, and he didn't get the conviction of it "beyond reasonable doubt", and that is what puzzles me a bit.

Yeah, well I know I'm basing this on civil courts, are international or military courts different in that aspect? is the burden of proof not that high in them, and more like utilitarian ways to solve these problems.

Last edited by blunnet on 03 May 2011, 12:39 am, edited 3 times in total.

And it is more ethical to kill him without trial. I guess.

There is a difference between proceeding with a trial when there is certainty of conviction (which would come because of the accusing side getting a good range of evidence) and doing it when the outcome is decided. The idea of trial is one in which the judge is not the same as the people presenting the evidence, otherwise, yeah it would be unethical. But that's not a trial, either

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 03 May 2011, 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes.