Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Adams who wrote (9619)	9/17/2001 2:35:52 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

>>We propose to capture terrorists before they act. What are the ramifications for this? Legal, ethical and moral?<< Legally, you can't convict someone of thinking of committing a crime. You can convict him of attempting to commit a crime. You can convict him of conspiring to commit a crime. But the US does not have jurisdiction over crimes or conspiracies in other countries. That's why we are not calling this a crime, we are calling it war. I thought you realized that. In war, we don't have trials, we kill people. There is the International Court of Justice if we decide to go that way. If we capture bin Laden and decide to take him to trial, it will endanger countless innocent Europeans. Besides which, I don't think that Court has jurisdiction. Another precedent is the Nuremberg trials, which used judges drawn from the nations which fought Hitler. I think the legal precedent for that is a bit shakey. Bin Laden does not belong to a country which has laws or treaties which bin Laden broke. The only answer that I see now is execution. But International law is not my specialty. I think it's arguable that bin Laden broke Islamic law and could be convicted by an Islamic court, but not likely.