Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Will Osama Bin laden die before he has the chance to see the inside of a court room?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26798points) September 12th, 2010

9/11 is observed still 9 years, concocted by Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden is till on the loose. Will Osama Bin Laden be taken by death before being taken into custody? It has been 9 years, how many more years do anyone believe Osama has before he dies? He is old already and hiding in dank caves he may die of illness before ever seeing the inside of a court room.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

45 Answers

Nullo's avatar

I heard a story once suggesting that he died some years back of kidney failure. I don’t believe it, but I’d say that it couldn’t happen to a better person.

Mom2BDec2010's avatar

I thought he was dead already. or thats what they want us to think

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

Probably. Any force that tried to capture him would probably kill him in a fire fight. I’m not convinced he is hiding in caves though.

ragingloli's avatar

They had a chance to capture him once. But they chose not to. They chose not to, because they need a spectre as a basis for the fear mongering that enables them to encroach on civil liberties without people complaining.
That is why they will not even try to capture him.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@ragingloli I saw a book in the shops recently written by one of the delta force commandos in the team sent to capture him, telling exactly how he escaped. I think it would be great to hear from that perspective. How exactly did they choose not to capture him? Wouldn’t the image of the US being able to subdue any enemy have been so much stronger?

mammal's avatar

‘bout as likely as The Bush administration (that propelled us blindly into a harrowing conflict with carefully selected Islamic states) being held accountable. Bin Laden has the aura of a man that will not easily be burst, unlike the aura of American untouchability which was comprehensively burst by two passenger aircraft 9 years previous.

ragingloli's avatar

one aircraft, one missile and several demolition charges

Austinlad's avatar

I doubt it. And while not saying he shouldn’t be captured or tried and held accountable for what crimes he’s committed of, but I do need convincing that it would have substantive value. It certainly wouldn’t make us safer from foreign and home-grown terrorists—might even make us less so.

Cruiser's avatar

He’s dead and has been for quite some time.

rainbowspirit's avatar

From what I have heard in the past, he was already a very sick (physically as well as mentally) man and I personally think he will die before he can be captured and put on trial. Although this may mean that the families of his victims do not have the satisfaction of phyically seeing him punished for the evil atrocities he has been behind, it will save the public having to pay for what would be a lengthy trial and possibly the cost of keeping him in prison in a reasonable standard of living that many ordinairy people do not enjoy. There is also the point that while he remains having to hide out somewhere remote, he probably will not have access to proper medical treatment and pain management and will hopefully suffer dreadfully from his ailments.

Ron_C's avatar

I seriously doubt that, if he is dead, that his body will be found. If he is alive, the government fanatics in this country don’t want him found. You cannot have a war if you don’t have a boogeyman and the establishment wants and needs war.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

What would it matter if he saw the inside of the court room? You think a prison sentence or a death sentence would matter to him or to his followers?

Ron_C's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir we certainly don’t want him to become a marytr at our hand.

I think, if they catch him they should put him in with the child molesters and other scum. He should also be kept away from other Muslims. He is a really bad influence on them.

Nullo's avatar

@Ron_C A nice room, with a nice cot. and playing on a television behind a sheet of plastic, in a recess in the wall, an continuous loop of 9/11 footage.
Or is insanity too good?

Ron_C's avatar

@Nullo I want Ben Ladin and his fellow murders to lead a long remorseful life. I want them to experience the fruits of their labor with all of their faculties.

Nullo's avatar

@Ron_C There are many theories on the exact nature of Hell. One of them (Dante’s, I think) tailors a person’s eternal suffering to match their most heinous deeds in life.

Ron_C's avatar

@Nullo I don’t believe in hell. Even if you do, it’s only a possibility. I would like to see that the evil is punished long and hard, right here on earth. If there is a hell, so much the better.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Ron_C and @Nullo What exactly is the point of punishment? If you punish a child for doing the wrong thing, they will grow to associate wrongs with misfortune on their part, and will avoid wrongs in the future. If you punish a criminal, the hope is that they will avoid criminal activities in the future in fear of the punishment. However punishing a criminal is not always as effective (anyone got statistics?) as rehabilitation, so why punish them? What is the point of revenge?

On the point of hell, isn’t this the most pointless punishment of all? It cannot deter people from future wrongs, because they are being punished forever. Doesn’t this just make God a vindictive sadist, with no real wish for people to do the right thing?
Of course I am assuming here that God’s idea of wrongs is appropriate for the sake of the exercise.

Nullo's avatar

Not all punishment is corrective. Biblically, sin and punishment and such are arranged in a sort of economic system, as illustrated by, “The wages of sin is death” and similar. Somewhat more subtly, the Mosaic Law spends a lot of time (particularly in the civil and moral portions) metering sin and the proper atonement, which is generally rendered as restitution in one form or another. It is similar to the idea expressed in the phrase, “Let the punishment fit the crime.”
As I said above, there are a number of theories on the nature of Hell. The Dante version is somewhat outmoded nowadays. My own has Hell as being the state of things when a person is totally cut off from God in accordance with a zero-tolerance policy for sin and those who cling to it. A cosmic wastebasket, as it were.
In any case, God will forgive you if you repent and ask Him to.

I think that the system of restitutionary justice, where the end is to pay for your infractions, sits well with most people, well enough to have been the foundation of every criminal justice system that I can think of. Unless I am mistaken, rehabilitation is a fairly recent addendum. Osama bin Laden destroyed thousands of lives and caused probably billions of dollars in property damage, so he has a pretty large tab. If he doesn’t pay his tab, the accounts are out of balance. There is an agency that would cover his bill (with conditions, naturally), and if he were to sign it over, I’d be satisfied.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Nullo But why? Restitutionary justice is all well and good for thieves and vandals, but many crimes cause irreversible damage whereby restitution cannot be made. What is the point of any form of punishment if it cannot either put things back as they were or make sure the person does not re-offend?

Nullo's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh The person ought to at least make the effort. You cannot un-murder people, but you can have your every waking moment directed at rectifying the situation as best you can.
It is the human limit on restitution that gives us the death penalty: for what is the most valuable possession that a person can have? His life. He has made the effort – he gave, even though nobody can receive – and he is removed as a menace.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Nullo As a side note, which seem a logical fact to me, even the death penalty misses ”let the punishment fit the crime” because in the case of Osama even under and eye-for-an-eye it is anemic. To say you killed someone so you will be killed to make up for the live you killed, as for Osama and the other terrorist you can’t kill them, reanimate them, and kill them again so they will give their life equal to everyone who died; each victim would be lucky to get equivalent to 4 square inches if they are that lucky. Further more the death penalty to atheist will mean little because he will just go off to the great white zephrum or nothingness and not even know he was dead, so he would not suffer as in prison rotting his life away. With no afterlife death has no sting any more than those terrorist who believe death holds the key to paradice.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Nullo Taking someone’s life does not give benefit to anyone. It is done out of a sense of rightful revenge, not because it is actually for the best.

@Hypocrisy_Central I think you are missing the point of the lack of an afterlife. Just because there is nothing to be feared after death doesn’t mean you are necessarily ready to embrace death here and now.

Nullo's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh Aside from the elimination-from-society part (which I see as a benefit, in some cases), I agree with you: the death penalty isn’t really about benefit. Rather, it’s sort of like (to use a slightly outmoded cliche) mailing a check; you have done your part.

@Hypocrisy_Central There are ways to stretch an execution, though most of them have been ruled cruel and unusual.
I am reminded of a video that I saw once of a soldier dipping the bullets for his carbine in a tin of canned ham that had been labeled “Pork” in Arabic. The idea was that whichever Muslims that he shot would presumably become unclean just before dying, and thus wouldn’t get his 72 virgins; instead, they would end up wherever ceremonially-unclean Muslims go when they die. He didn’t believe it, but his intended audience did.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Nullo Done your part to what end? Sure, they are unable to re-offend, but their right to life is violated – something no one has the right to do.

Nullo's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh “Your part” refers to the restitution business. Structured as a transaction, you have the offender who offers restitution to the offended in exchange for putting the matter to rest. In the case of the death penalty, the offender offers what restitution he can

It has been established that the law can deprive a person of his life.

Ron_C's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh ”@Ron_C and @Nullo What exactly is the point of punishment?” You know, sometimes it just feels good to know that a no good S.O.B. is getting what he deserves. Personally, I’d put Obama and Bush in the same cage then have a daily lottery to see who gets to whip the shit out of them.

Nullo's avatar

@Ron_C The point, IMO, depends on the situation: punishment can be tied into instruction (rather popular these days), and it ties in with that cosmic accounting that I’ve been yammering about.
There’s also something to be said about the associated ceremony injected by the criminal justice system and how it keeps things civil. Sure, you could hobble bin Laden and leave him at Ground Zero to get trampled to death by New Yorkers, but it smacks of unnecessary cruelty.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Nullo I realise what “your part” is, but I don’t know what end you have in mind when no restitution can be made. In the case of the death penalty, it is the same as if a man defaults on his home loan, but offers to cut off his hand instead because a hand has to be worth something right? It is in the wrong currency for restitution – if anything, measures should be taken to allow them to have a positive impact on society. Their death counts for nothing.

@Ron_C “You know, sometimes it just feels good to know that a no good S.O.B. is getting what he deserves.”
Exactly. The death penalty is about revenge, not justice. It makes us feel good to know we have exacted vengeance, but is that enough? If we feel good about sending people to their deaths, why not send petty thieves to the lions in the arena for the amusement of the crowd? Should we not pursue justice as a higher cause than revenge?

Nullo's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh It’s a different philosophy than what you might be used to.
In the case of death penalty (or else a lifetime of community service, if you like) for murder, I’d say that it’s the perfect currency: a life in exchange for a life.
More common for financial shortcomings under the restitutionary system that I have in mind is temporary servitude. They also had a sort of global reset button that would get pushed at regular 7-year intervals.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Nullo It is very different to what I am used to. The thing is a life for a life doesn’t work, because it just results in two lives lost. The death of the offender does nothing to bring back the victim, it only appeases the friends and family after revenge.

Nullo's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh Phoreign philosophies phit poorly. You do not think that there are cosmic books to be balanced, so you cannot grok a system that employs such. Your paradigm has no room.
You are effectively closed-minded. :D

I ask you, though: why should a murder get to keep his life?

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Nullo I am effectively closed minded on this matter, because I wrote off the death penalty as vile, barbaric and sub-human long ago. I don’t mind the tag in this instance, but please do your best to convince me otherwise.

A murderer should get to keep his life for three main reasons that I can think of:
1. A murderer has taken another life, but to take his life requires further murder. If they choose to commit suicide while in jail, then I really don’t mind, but taking their life in an intentional act of retribution by the state is a violation of their rights. It is as if a child’s toy has been broken, so they go and break the toy of the offending child – all you have is two broken toys, and there is a cost for both. Two wrongs in the case really don’t make a right.
2. It is important to study criminals in order to understand their motives and factors that precipitated the crime, so that preventative measures can be taken. If you kill them, that information is lost. Every case brings a valuable aspect to the psychological profile that can be built for each type of crime, which can help shape future preventative programs to keep the crimes from happening in the first place.
3. Every person has the potential to be good. To kill a person in a perverted form of justice is to make a judgement that they can be of no further benefit to society. We do not have the right to make that judgement without knowledge of the future. Chopper Read would have been given the death penalty in every country that enforces it, having been involved in 19 killings, but he has gone on to reach out to the criminal community and have a truly positive impact on society.

Justice13's avatar

Well, I sent him a letter with anthrax inside, and no, it’s not because I have anything against him (I don’t hate him, if you don’t like that, too bad), but I’d like to be one to claim to have killed him when no one else could, and especially all for something as mundane as shits and giggles.

I would love to claim killing him, and deny doing it to avenge everyone that has died at his hands. That would leave a lot of people unavenged and pissed at me, which I find comforting.

Ron_C's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh I completely agree that state sponsored murder is no better than murders committed by individuals. There should, however, be exceptions. People that commit multiple murders, serial killers, and sociopaths that kill without remorse. They are irredeemable and dangerous to keep around. You don’t let a rabies infested raccoon or dog alive until the disease eventually and painfully kills it. The same mercy should be granted to the irredeemable and unrepentant killer. Put them down before they cause further harm. It is not revenge it is not murder, in fact, it is a mercy.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Ron_C I have a part that longs for revenge, but I cannot accept that killing is potentially just for any crime. Serial killers and sociopaths generally don’t spread their disease to others, so locking them up and depriving them of their freedom is enough for me.

Ron_C's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh “Serial killers and sociopaths generally don’t spread their disease to others” is not necessarily true. There are cop-cat killers and sociopaths that manipulate people into doing things just for entertainment value. Since most of those classes are captured when relatively young, they have years to perfect their methods, even convince parole boards that they are “cured” of their affliction. I believe that they are just too dangerous to keep around.

Consider, Bus, probably the whole family, are sociopaths. Their Barbra Bush is notably unconcerned with the fate of the lessor races. Yet she has evaded capture and produced at least one son that killed 152 prisoners (many that did not have a fair trial) in Texas and went on to have over 5000 U.S. servicemen and hundreds of thousand Iraqi and Afghanistanis killed. The world, today, would be a much safer place if Barbra Bush had been captured and executed.

That is just one example, I suspect that there are a host of serial killers and functioning sociopaths responsible for horrendous crimes, roaming the earth.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Ron_C Copy-cat killers can mimic dead serial killers too. The danger is more that the sociopath in question will be able to communicate with a fan base. I would like to see a mandatory life sentence for every serial killer, since it is almost always based on an incurable psychological/physiological disorder that compels them to kill. The same would go for serial rapists/paedophiles etc. I don’t think it is hereditary though, since several serial killers have had perfectly normal children.

I think the basic argument here is that ‘an eye for an eye’ is a ridiculous principle. Inhuman people still have a right to be treated humanely, meaning they should live until either nature takes them or they die by their own hand. Killing criminals may make us feel better, but I think it accomplishes little and is of no practical or social use.

Ron_C's avatar

@FireMadeFlesh I meant that GWB inherited his sociopath tendency both from his genes and environment. The Bush family made its money dealing with dictators, supplying arms, and other support for the worst dictators and corrupt leaders in history. They are close personal friends with the Saudi family, a bunch of thieves, murderers and just plain low lives that sneaked their way into power, much like the Bush family, a match made in hell.

Never trust any group that is publicly religious and privately supporters of torture.

As for an eye for an eye, there are too many on the Bush side to be appeased. It would be much better for the entire Bush clan if their wealth was taken away and their leaders jailed for the rest of their lives in a high security prison for the worst of criminals because that is what I believe George senior an junior are. I want them to live a very long time, in captivity.

ragingloli's avatar

I am sure he will be captured alive to stand tria- oh wait.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@Brian1946 I’d forgotten I’d ever written that!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther