[BikerNYC]

My comment was ment to illustrate that the world is a safer place when these kind of people are dead.

Perhaps. But the point of constitutional rights is to help prevent the government from screwing up. While I support our war effort, I could not for the life of me right a 5 page essay detailing the evidence that exists against osama. Consitututional rights forces the government to its burden of proof. It must prove to a jury that a person is actually guilty of what it says he is guilty of.

[nopardons]

No, of course YOU couldn't prove that bin Laden is guilty of anything. You haven't seen what those in the government has seen. I also doubt that you have eveen read ALL of threads, about this, on Fr !

The last time I looked, bin Laden isn't a citizen of the USA, and neither are his top officials, or those who maned the planes. There are some citizens, who have gone to fight with bin Laden, but hopefully, they have been killed already. What they did, is TREASON !

George Washington, as president , had a military tribunal for those who were traitors during the Revolution, Lincoln also instituted such trials, as did FDR. This president has been set 100's of years ago. For all of the people screaming about wanting to go back to what the FFs would have done today, WE JUST HAVE !

[Steve_Seattle]

"it must prove to a jury that the person is guilty"

I would rather have the jury comprised of professional military jurists that a jury of civilians. Almost every jury these days seems to have at least one moron who can be swayed by the most ridiculous defense argument. Would you like to have Osama bin Laden tried by the O. J. Simpson jury, or one of Bush's military tribunals?