Poll: What Should We Do with Osama Bin Laden? (Part I)
This week we asked our readers if the United States should adopt Churchill's approach in the current crisis. Replies that came in during the first 24 hours are published below. (Replies that came in later will be published next week.)
SHOOT THEM
In this case, Churchill is right. The Nazis could be put on trial because Nazism had been utterly destroyed. There was almost no possibility that Goering's justifications and sophistic joustings with the prosecution could be turned into dangerous propaganda. Radical, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Islam continues. Public trials for bin Laden et. al. would propagate their ideology. Shoot them.
Robert WatersUniversity of South Dakota
DON'T MAKE HIM A MARTYR
I know that it's politically incorrect to say it, but I think they should be tried by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity and imprisoned if convicted. I should explain that I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances. Besides, if it's retribution we're after, I'm quite sure that Ben Laden and company would rather be martyred than left to rot in prison.
George M. Fredrickson
MUCH PAIN
Tried and then executed hopefully quite slowly and with much pain
Michael Kelley
FIRST A TRIAL, THEN SHOOT THEM
Much as I personally admire the old curmudgeon, the course of action Sir Winston wanted to follow was based in anger and revenge for the severe destruction endured by Britain. The most morally appropriate, and politically expedient course for us to follow with bin Laden and his comrades would be to bring them to the US, and follow the same procedure as we did in Nuremberg after WW2. A public trial exhibiting all of the heinous crimes which he was responsible for, directly or indirectly, could be of great public relations value. It would also demonstrate our continued commitment to the rule of law. Then we can shoot the bastards.
John Stahler
CHATTERING IDIOTS AND THE NEW MEDIA
The Churchillian way is quite to the point. With Barbara Walters, Dateline, 60 Minutes, Cable news and the ACLU, we would have a circus and instant celebrities. The Stockholm Syndrome would thrive. Thank God none of these chattering idiots and new media existed when the Nuremberg trials took place.
Dom Moreo
BIN LADEN AND DEVILS ISLAND
I will never work to kill off a leader. That makes them a martyr. Look at the Alamo there was a group of America's best killed. They are icons of the American spirit or Martyrs. There will be no relevance to the Islamic world without a tribunal consisting of Islamic law scholars. It seems a Nuremburg trial model could with world court and U.N. sponsorship might work.
I would like to see Bin Laden Locked away on Devils Island for the rest of his life. I would want him on supervised hard labor for the rest of his life. I would like to see him have no contact with anyone but the supervisor and have that supervisor be the family member of a New York victim. I would have him listen to rock and roll 24 hours a day. I would have a Christian broadcast station on the TV for him 24 hours a day. Make sure the all terrorist would get equal treatment. Flood them with all they oppose until they cry in terror and then keep it up. Killing someone who is ready to die for God is counter productive. Make him live and slowly die facing all he hates and truly drive him mad first.
chuck knicely, cknicely@cambridgeoh.com
WOMEN
They should be tried by a tribunal of Muslim feminists.
Tim Hodgdon Ph.D. candidate Department of History Arizona State UniversityTHIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT
International trials after WW II helped establish the principle of international human rights, so this is really important.
Ruth Rosen
JUSTICE AND COMMON SENSE
It seems clear to me that Churchill was wrong. Without the Nuremberg trials there would always have been the suspicion that the Allies summarily executed the Nazi leaders to hide evidence that might have exculpated them. Or to take another case, had Lee Harvey Oswald lived to be tried, conspiracy theories could not have festered as they do. Killing a captive Bin Laden quickly would persuade millions of Muslims (and, frankly, others like me) that the U.S. did not trust its own case or feared the exposure of its own complicity in his crime. Justice and common sense would demand a fair trial to create a solid and damning historical record against terrorism. That's well worth the presumed"disadvantage" of giving him a propaganda platform during the trial itself.
Bernard Weisberger
BUT WHAT ABOUT BERT?
A"show trial" properly conducted would have incredible political value. I have a wonderful image in my mind of Osama Bin Laden in an orange jumpsuit and shackles, with a shaved head and beard sitting behind bullet proof glass in a court somewhere.
More importantly, what do we do with the silent partner, Bert? (of Sesame Street fame)
Jeff Schramm
U.S. AS ROLE MODEL
Until recent a recent Executive Order from the Bush administration regarding military tribunals, the free world looked to the U.S. as a role model for democratic government. Now, however, we have Spain and members of the E.U. waving their fingers at us for abandoning basic, fundamental freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution.
Edward Winslow
TRIAL
Put them on trial.
J. Pablo Silva
ACT WITH RESTRAINT AND SHOW THEM WHO'S BIGGER
If, as some proverbialist once said, one can learn a great deal about a society by studying how it cares for its oldest and youngest members, one can learn still more by studying how a society takes care of its enemies. Every member of al-Qaeda who played a demonstrable part in the 9/11 attacks or in other terrorist activity should be arrested, tried in a court of law (preferably an international one) for crimes against humanity, and then punished as that court sees fit, with long imprisonment preferable to execution."Ordinary" al-Qaeda fighters, men who traveled to Afghanistan to engage in combat on behalf of the Taliban, should be considered and treated as prisoners of war: if they committed criminal acts in the course of the Afghan wars, they should be tried as such; if they merely waged war, as construed by international law, they should be released at the end of the conflict as custom and precedent dictates. (I can imagine that Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld would have little trouble proving that the"war on terror" can have no end, and thus that such POWs should never be released.) What matters most is that we show extremists who wish us ill, undecided observers, and our allies near and far that the U.S. can act with restraint, civility, and even caution, values intrinsic to modern societies at peace and all the more important to them during war. We have to show that, in the vernacular sense, we're bigger than they are.
Christopher James Tassava, M.A. doctoral candidate Northwestern University History DepartmentTURKEY TRIAL
Justice and the law seem to diverge in this situation. But how about an Islamic trial in Turkey?
Rachel Barrett Gallop Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History University of MinnesotaNO FEEDING FRENZY
Go with Winston. Save a lot of money and boring press feeding frenzy.
MBrown
OSAMA AND OSWALD
First, this is probably academic, because it isn't likely Osama will be taken alive. Given his past (and probably present) involvement with the CIA and his family's financial ties with the Bush family, it would be far too embarrassing to have him answering questions in court. Our eagerness to censure his broadcasts indicates an unwillingness to let him have his say. In the unlikely event of his being captured alive, he would probably quickly meet the fate of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Gene Franks Denton, TXEVIDENCE FOR FUTURE HISTORIANS
If we had shot the Nazis - summarily executed them - think what we would now lack. We would have no Nuremberg Trial record, and no transcripts of the interrogations. The evidence for future historians which came from these proceedings would never be available. Many of the lessons of the Third Reich would be lost forever. And, we would have no major precedent for trying war criminals and the like. The body of international law would have not been exercised to the extent it has.
Frederic M. Messick
DEATH ASAP
Well, first, at the risk of being pedantic.....the proper transliteration is"Usâmah bin Lâdin" and"al-Qâ`idah." (Sorry, Islamic historian here...)
On the larger issue: Bin Lâdin and his ilk reject"Western" notions of law and human rights--so why should he and they be extended the courtesies and defences thereof?
Put him and any other captured terrorist to death ASAP.
Tim Furnish
NO SHOW TRIAL
In this case Churchill was right. Execution in the field. Ley fuga! Shot while trying to escape. No show trial for this bunch.
William A. Henslee
LET'S SEE THE EVIDENCE
They should be arrested, indicted and tried in a court in the State of New York. They are suspected murderers and felony murderers. If the American people are to be sure that the right men have been convicted, they'll have to see the evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, work harder to get the evidence that is supposed to be so damning. And the trial should be televised.
John Flanagan Peoria, Illinois
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
I would favor a military tribunal which is a trial (as opposed to summary executions) but one that can protect national security and sensitive sources. A public civilian trial under the laws of jurisprudence which are rights guaranteed to American citizens is not appropriate for foreign enemies who have committed acts of war against our people. It would also be inappropriate to have to put Islam on trial and that would surely happen.
S. Henson
MORE DIPLOMATIC THAN EMOTIONALLY SATISFYING
A Texan friend often says, when any nasty example of human behavior is discussed,"Oh, just take 'em out and shoot 'em." That was Churchill's solution, and might have been Machiavelli's. But no prince or court or conqueror commands the respect of the entire world, and the Texan solution, besides being short-sighted, is insular. A solution to this problem involves demonstrating that we are better than our enemies and that we respect all our allies. It will have to be a more diplomatic solution than an emotionally satisfying one.
Patrick Inman
CIVILIZED WESTERN JUSTICE
As we are doing with Serbian leaders, let us bring them before the tribunal at the Hague and place them on trial and give them a taste of civilized Western justice, if only to show we are better SOBs than they are.
Nigel Sellars
SECRETS AND OTHER DIRTY DEALS
As a voter and a American, I think we should follow the rule of law and bring them to a court. I believe that evidence should be presented and a trial for the world to see should be allowed. Secrets are kept because of illegal actions...
I really believe however that this administration wants these people DEAD as to not WAG TALES tales of the shrubs and the CIA and all the other dirty rotten deals
good luck
Ostrich/chil
CAUSE TO WONDER
We keep forgetting there is an expensive price to be paid for a democratic system based on the rule of law. Taking shortcuts, no matter how convenient and seemingly justified, tears at the fabric of the legal system that protects us. The military tribunal procedure ennunciated by our acting president relates to a domestic conspiracy theory to which I do not-- as yet-- subscribe. But when I hear one side proclaim its goodness by describing the other as"evil;" when I hear the administration and mass media manipulate the undefined term,"terrorism;" when I hear a police action transformed by imperlialistic jingoism into a"war;" when I see massive tax rebates given to corporations that underwrote the GOP presidential campaign-- then I wonder about chances for a right wing conspiracy in the U.S. I agree, it is not likely. But when the administration trashes the idea of post-police action trials, it gives one cause to wonder.
George Beres gberes@oregon.uoregon.eduCHANGE OF MIND
They should be tried in military courts (although if you had asked me on September 12th, I would have agreed 100% with Winston).
Nelson Hellwig
TAKE NO PRISONERS
If you are keeping score on your reader response and will post the results, I have a short answer for you. If you are looking for a lengthy dissertation rationalizing about what to do with these poor misguided souls with more liberalism then I will pass.
My short answer is the same as Winston Churchill's with one proviso, if these terrorists are fighting, dont take them prisoner. They are not worth risking the life of any of our military troops. If they are captured the result of surrendering, execute them after identifying them, by the end of the day preferably. Swift justice will out. They have no political value to anyone but the terrorist leadership. You will never convert or change anyone who believes in terror the result of his religious beliefs. I want my family and countrymen safe from these throwbacks to an earlier century. They wanted a war to the death, they should have it.
E.T. Strobridge Order of Minor HistoriansFIND THEM, THEN KILL THEM
Find them, and if they are not killed in the process of finding, then kill them.
Bob Arnoldt
TRICKY QUESTION
Despite our current attorney general, even terrorists deserve a fair trail. But what a fair trial means -- or even more complexly, what would be a jury of Bin Laden's peers, is a tricky question. It seems clear that, for persons captured abroad, a trial by some kind of an international tribunal is the wisest course, an international tribunal with at least some Muslim judges from Muslim nations that are cooperating with the United States and its associates in this endeavor. We have pioneered this approach at Nuremburg and Tokyo, which has led to the current trials at the Hague. None of these tribunals produce perfect justice, but that same can be said for our own system. But they are clearly an attempt at justice and are generally seen as such. The notion that a military tribunal, having been told repeatedly by its commander in chief, that certain defendants are evil, could possibly be perceived as fair, is utterly far-fetched.
Roger Daniels
VENGEANCE NEVER JUSTIFIABLE
There have been few instances in recent history that would seem to make vengeance more justifiable, but it is never justifiable. Rule of law, trial by judge and jury are bulwarks to modern civilization. Secret trials and summary executions are the indicators of totalitarianism. It is again the Lockean-Hobbesian debate. Should government, whether national or international, be a Leviathan in order to protect life and property, or should it grant all men their rights as"inalienable".
In Robert Bolt's play,"A Man for All Seasons", Thomas More states that he would grant the devil the protection of the law because without the law, we are all defenseless. I stand with More and Locke; these rights are God given and inalienable. If Israel could try Eichman, we can try Osama bin Laden. Why? Because we are civilized and because he has robbed us of 5,000 lives, but only we can compromise our liberties. Without the rule of law, there will be"No arts; no letters; no society; and worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Robert J. ("Bob") Nuxoll Oceanside HS Oceanside, Long Island, NYDON'T BECOME WHAT WE ABHOR
Let the rule of law take precedence. This is a nation built upon the foundation of law. We should not become what we abhor.
Bob Labozetta
IT'S DIFFERENT WITH BIN LADEN
I agree with the Soviets, Nazism should be put on trial so that the flaws of that political system can be seen and all the atrocities commited never forgotten. But the case with bin Laden is different. There is no question in the public mind that bin Laden is in the wrong, and that his methods are immoral. In fact, the more publicity we give to his beliefs and methods, the more successful his tactics become. bin Laden is not about military conquest or the success of one political group over another. He is against our whole way of life. And, let's face it, we are not the one's attacking, nor have we been aggressive in eliminating the way of life bin Laden represents over the last fifty years. But our system does have its flaws, like any other. And the more we judge our way of life against his, the more we will be objective and the more we will see that his way of life has attacking a world that was willing to coexist with him peacefully, he might actually gain some sympathy through a legal conflict. In this case, it is better for us all if bin Laden especially is killed before he can be brought to any trial.
Flint Johnson
NO GANGSTER-STYLE JUSTICE
By no means should they be taken out and shot, however convenient that might be. Churchill lived to revise his opinion. So, too, did FDR. Whatever the immense faults and hypocrisies of, and endless recriminations attaching to, the Nuremberg procedure, it was superior to the brutal gangster-style justice first occurring to WSC and FDR in their despair over the forthcoming prospects and the recollection of the disastrous post-1918 attempts at war crimes trials. If you can stand the brutality of such wars, you ought to be able to stand the brutality of revealing to the world something of the awful truths about them. The history of it all will in any event not be pretty, but it will at least be unmarked by ignoble assassination on the part of the victors.
John C. Cairns
'NUFF SAID
Kill them.
Michael Pierce
THE BEST APPROACH
Whatever is least likely to create a martyr or group of martyrs. One hopes they will be killed in battle or will commit suicide to avoid capture. If they are taken alive, particularly bin Laden himself, a summary execution would be a bad idea. A War Crimes trial in which all the available evidence is made public, followed by an execution under the auspices of the United Nations, would be the best approach. The Nuremberg trials made Nazi banality much clearer to posterity than immediate executions would have done, no matter how satisfying it would have been to allow concentration camp survivors to beat them to death.
Good luck, Steven Reschly Associate Professor of History Truman State UniversityBOX CUTTER JUSTICE
Shoot the bastards - or better yet, cut their throats with a box cutter.
Jim Thomason
JUSTICE MUST BE DONE
Justice must be done and seen to be done. A trial before an internationally recognised tribunal to discourage further acts of international terrorism.
Dr. M.C. Rosenfeld
WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?
Need a TRIAL with protections under the rule of law, and proof"beyond a reasonable doubt." Not a secretive military tribunal. Not even necessarily a trial by jury. But a trial with prosecution and defense counsel, and a procedure that brings honor and credibility to the rule of law. Isn't rule of law, after all, the goal? What are those opposed to trial with protections under the rule of law afraid of?
Douglas R. Reynolds Department of History Georgia State UniversityU.S. NEEDS TO SHOW ITS CIVILITY
The world is looking at the U.S. through a microscope, just as it looked at the Soviets. It will be necessary for the United States to also show its civility, its ablity to be"above-board" in the worst conditions. It is also important for the moral of the United States citizens to see that their country is strong, respectable, and does not stoop to the same levels as the Taliban or Bin Laden. Politically, this makes the U.S. look good, and within the country, the Bush administration look good to the citizens. Thus, in that way, a trial is far more beneficial the long standing image of the United States, than would the fast, physical elllimination of Bin Laden or other terrorists, just as the trials of Nazism gave the Soviets a needed political boost.
J. D. Frank
OPEN TRIAL AND REVELATIONS
If we are a society based on the rule of law that we claim to be, then bin Laden and his associates will be tried. So far, the only evidence connecting them to the crimes of Sept. 11 have been bits of data selectively released by his opponents. We deserve to see whatever responsibility al Qaeda may bear systematically demonstrated according to evidentiary rules.
At the same time, I am convinced that Bush and his associates want bin Laden et al. killed as quickly as possible because I they know that a full and open trial would lead to revelations of prior acts, complicity, and incompetence that would be deeply embarrassing to the West as a whole and to the United States Bush Sr. in particular.
Dell Upton UC BerkeleySHOULDN'T HESITATE
bin Laden et al. should be tried by the same court that's trying Milosevic or a similar court. If we did it with the Nazis and the Japanese, we shouldn't hesitate to do it with terrorists. It would be instructive, as well as moral.
J. Morgan Kousser
THE LAW IS KING
We need look no further than our own history to answer the question of what to do with Osama bin Landen and his cohorts. First, we can look to Thomas Paine's ageless wisdom when he wrote in _Common Sense_ that". . .in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. . ." Second, we can look to our own forefathers' commendation of Parliament's imposition of the Vice-Admeralty courts in the colonies as a means to assure compliance with the 1764 Sugar Act. At the time, leading colonists voiced their indignation at being subjected to maritime tribunals that withheld the basic legal protections afforded under common law, none the least of which was the right to a jury trial. As such, if we are to avoid becoming that which we most despised in others, we must not now abandon those principles that gave rise to our own freedoms when dealing with the Al Qaeda leaders.
Sondra Cosgrove Ph.D. Candidate Dept. History University of Nevada, Las VegasRISE TO A HIGHER LEVEL
We are a nation of laws. We revere our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the elaborate framework of law and order at the local, state, and federal level. We must not abandon our laws as we deal with war criminals. The Military Justice System may apply in Afghanistan but in my opinion, we should rise to the higher level of our historic past of freedom and justice. Put Osama bin Laden on trial along with other Taliban leaders who have perpetrated murder not only in Afganistan but all over the world including America. Perhaps execution is a just decision; why not keep them in prison to suffer the fate of living out their lives so that they can see that freedom and democracy are the wave of the 21st century.
Joseph G. Smoot Pittsburg, KanCANADIAN COMMENTS
This is a real conundrum - for which I (living north of the border) see absolutely no easy answer. Because IF he is taken alive ... what options are there?... None are very appealing... International Tribunal (a la the Milosevic process) Military Tribunal (which has the overtones of a NKVD troika from the '30s) or Civilian Court ... in both the former and the latter, Bin Laden would be guaranteed an audience of billions - and not just in western Europe and North America. This might be a transparent process ... but would anyone dare risk it? But while the Military Tribunal route might effectively"gag" him ... it could also be construed as a kangaroo court ... which leaves you with ... A situation that I cannot really adequately address
Adam Hedinger
JAILED FOR LIFE
If captured, the leaders should be put on trial and , if found guilty, they should be jailed for life. We should demonstrate that we are civilized.
Janusz Duzinkiewicz Assistant Professor of History Social Sciences Section Purdue University North CentralMIGHT DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE RIGHT
Osama bin Laden and other high officials of the Al-Qaeda network should be tried. Simply shooting them would be an exercise in might makes right. It's a procedure likely to produce more martyrs not to persuade the disaffected. To avoid producing a new generation of suicide bombers, we will have to appeal to rule of law, international law which does not defer to US military power.
Rega Wood
CHURCHILL'S COMMENTS IRRELEVANT
I think they should be tried by an international court, perhaps the same court that has the responsibility for trying suspected war criminals from the former Yugoslavia. Trials, properly understood, are to determine guilt and innocence, as well as to assess punishment. Due process for everyone is a pretty good principle to espouse. Winston Churchill's comments on this and many other matters are irrelevant. Had he his way, India and Pakistan would still be part of the British empire.
Bill Pratt
MACHINATIONS AND SUBTERFUGE
They should be tried in the same way the Nazis were tried. Open court. Murder should never replace a just and fair trial. A trial would get to the network who brought this about and those who supported them. It could bring into the open all the machinations and subterfuge of the agents of interested countries.
J. Holman
STOP IT BEFORE IT OCCURS AGAIN
I agree that Osama, if captured alive, should be put on trial (preferably in The Hague) before being sentenced. But I find this to be a very hypothetical question since he probably will kill himself to avoid being captured. It is far less hypothetical, far more important, and -in my view- more interesting historically, to instead ask: What creates Osama Bin Ladens in the first place, and what can be done to stop future fundamentalist suicide-terrorism before it occurs ?
Drew Keeling PhD Candidate History Dept. UC BerkeleyGET IT OVER WITH PROMPTLY
I'm with Churchill. It's doubtful how much political value could be gleaned by putting Talibanism or whatever on trial, because it would bring their sympathizers around the world back to a boil and create instability. Better to get it over with quietly and promptly.
Greg Piper
LOVE THOSE SHOW TRIALS
The Soviets loved show trials even though everyone knew they were staged. The WWII War Crime trails were hardly an example of justice being dispensed--it was more a trial by the victors.
Mark Bell
VICTIMS OF GENOCIDE?
My own view is that the al-Qaida leaders should be put on trial at an international tribunal, for genocide and incitement to genocide, as set forth in the 1948 UN Convention of Genocide. My rationale relies on 'Usama b. Laden's fatwa of 1998, which called upon Muslims to attack Americans, whether civilians or military men, wherever found. The fatwa was thus directed against a nationality or an ethnicity in such a way as to make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The UN convention reads: 'In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (etc.)'. The convention lists genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and direct and public incitement to commit genocide as war crimes (e.g . Bin Laden's fatwa) punishable by an international tribunal. By intention and fact, the attack on the World Trade Center was an example of anti- ethnic warfare. Convening such a tribunal would expose the al- Qaida network to world opinion and seems to be the only right action. However, it seems unlikely to me that the American government would want to admit that it had been the victim of genocide, especially as Article VIII clearly implies that a nation or people has the unilateral right to prevent and suppress genocide directed against itself.
Frank Trombley
PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACH
Americans had best not adopt Churchill's approach. We need to practice what we preach. And a basic American tenet is"justice for all." This means a trial - in a world court - such as was done at Nuremberg after WW II.
Roberta Copp
DON'T SUCCUMB TO REVENGE
Even Stalin understood the need to be better than the enemy and we should not succumb to our rash passionate need for revenge. We are a people governed by law. If we choose to become as savage as the enemy, then we have allowed terrorism to triumph.
Douglas Astolfi
SWIFT AND MERCIFUL
I tend to agree with the"Winston solution" as per"members of ObL's Terrorist Network". Especially if they are Saudi or Egyptian. Payback is a Bitch... Nuremburg and Manila were ultimately not deterrents to Genocide or Crimes against Humanity. They had little to do with Justice or morality or the scope of those involved in war crimes. Let justice be served within the context of taliban-wahabbi style and let their executions be swift and merciful.
Edward J. Trout History Dept. Pennsbury High School, Fallsington, PA.JUST AND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION
I am concerned that the clear and direct responsibility of Mr. Bin Laden and his associates has been asserted but not legally proven.
I have a hard time condoning Churchill's solution in the event that some other unknown organization is actually responsible for the Trade Center/Pentagon attacks.
As an American citizen, I would like more information and clear proof before signing over a blank-check to my government. I do not assert or doubt Bin Laden's guilt. I simply have nothing but a media/ public relations campaign on which to base my opinions.
Serious crimes and serious charges deserve just and serious consideration, not just battling slogans.
Richard Lundell Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignTRIED PUBLICLY
Those charged with complicity in the September 11 murders should be tried publicly in the US under American law with all its constitutional safeguards. This is the only way to demonstrate 1) that they are guilty under the evidence, and 2) that the US will not lower itself to the level of its enemies. Those who were involved in acts of terrorism in other countries should be delivered to those countries for trial. Those suspected of war crimes under the traditional laws of war should be tried before a UN tribunal. None should be dealt with summarily, nor should any be tried under secret military tribunals. These are methods worthy only of Nazis.
George Gibson
NOTHING WILL MOVE THEM
In this case, too many people out there will feel sorry for Usama and his friends. These people hate the US and nothing done or said in a courtroom by anyone will move them in the least.
Jay Spaulding
DEAD IN SHORT ORDER
Get them dead in short order. If they happen to be taken alive, and if a brief trial is necessary to assuage public opinion, arrange one that is expeditious.
David Randall
MYSTERIOUS POSTCARDS
I go with Churchill. As for the Soviet insight into the political value of putting the Nazis on trial, exactly the point. The political value of Nazi trials to the Soviets was in drawing an utterly unmerited line dividing Nazism from the equally hideous form of totalitarianism the Soviets had perfected. In any case, in this age of hypo-metastasizing"rights," I do not wish to see bin Laden protesting that, say, the special forces forgot to Marandize him, hence that BCW manual in his desk or the cell phone record of his conversations with Mohammad Atta cannot be entered as evidence. And of course there could be those postcards of the World Trade Center mysteriously appearing in the mailboxes of the jurors with the message"get the hint?" Spare us that. Put this war criminal down.
Jonathan Burack Highsmith Inc. jburack@highsmith.comTAKE IT ON FAITH?
Before I could support anybody's execution I'd have to be convinced of his specific responsibility for a specific act. In the case of McVeigh, I felt convinced. But I'm not about to take it on faith from the U.S. government, which has a long history of lying to us, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack of Sept. 11. My guess is that he won't allow himself to be taken alive anyway.
Ann Jefferson