Bin Laden's 'letter to America'

[Matt25]

gilliam:

I am not a lawyer, but this doesn’t sound right. He admitted to the crime of his own volition. We have evidence of the crime. That is all that is needed. Frankly, I think, for whatever reason, you are putting much more into this than need be.

I agree that he is guilty, and I am against the death penalty. But he is also an enemy combantant who is still out to cause us harm. If we have to kill him to stop him, so be it. It is justified.

Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.

Cestusdei advocated threatening bin Laden with death as a response to his supposed “Letter to America”. I think that responding to fire with fire is never going to be a victory for freedom, democracy, justice or Catholic values.

journal.houseonahill.net/index.php/journal/entry/the-right-against-self-incrimination/

You may have come across the cliche in law practice that in order to convict an accused in a criminal case, the prosecution should rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. That is the essence of the right against self-incrimination. Fishing expeditions, such as most Senate and Congressional inquiries, cannot be a substitute for the proper gathering of *real* evidence. In much the same way that the law frowns on convictions based purely on the accused’s confession. In other words, a man cannot be charged and convicted if all the prosecution has is the word of that man that he is indeed guilty.

Why? one may ask. If he is willing to admit his guilt, why can’t he be convicted and penalized on the basis of his own words? The law presumes, rightly or wrongly, that no man will willingly admit his own guilt. There is an implied presumption, therefore, that every confession or testimony that is self-incriminatory was not made voluntarily. Whether the presumption is based on the instinct for self-preservation or whether the law does not think much of man as a moral being, I really don’t know.

  Legally, the right against self-incrimination is meant to protect the individual against arbitrary prosecution and conviction. It mandates that the government (prosecution) do its job, and do it well, in order to bring a criminal to justice by making it clear that sloppy evidence will result in either a dismissal or an acquittal even if the accused admits his guilt.

The sad reality is that, in a system where the prosecution keeps hitting a blank wall in its search for evidence, the right against self-incrimination is being used by many criminals to evade prosecution and conviction.

There are a number of factors why it is difficult to gather sufficient evidence against a suspect. One, the suspect covered his tracks so well (Did someone say Marcos?) Two, the suspect is being protected by very powerful people. Three, the prosecution does not have the sufficient resources (manpower and financial) to do its work. Four, the prosecutors are incompetent. Fifth, the prosecutors have been corrupted by the suspect and his protectors

 

[gilliam]

Matt25,

Bin Laden is proud of what he did. Just like Hitler was proud of what he did.

If the only way to stop him is to kill him, then killing him is justified. In fact if he killed innocents again and you had the opportunity to stop him and didn’t then you would be in the wrong.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

If the only way to stop him is to kill him, then killing him is justified. .

If

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

If

If

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Matt25:

Cestusdei advocated threatening bin Laden with death as a response to his supposed “Letter to America”. I think that responding to fire with fire is never going to be a victory for freedom, democracy, justice or Catholic values.

Wrong. Removing bin Laden from this planet will be a huge victory for all of those things.

 

[cestusdei]

I think there has been a misunderstanding. I didn’t mean we should just threaten Osama with death. I meant that we should do everything we can to actually kill him. We are at war. He is the commander of the enemy. As such he is a legitimate target just like Hitler. He declared war, has violated the laws of war, targeted civilians intentionally, grossly violated the geneva convention, and says he will keep on doing it. I see nothing immoral in us killing him. The just war theory and international law back me up.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

gilliam:

It is from Sunday November 24, 2002, that is why I said it is probably time to re-read it.

Was this a re-release of the article, or did you find this in the archives?

 

[Matt25]

cestusdei:

I think there has been a misunderstanding. I didn’t mean we should just threaten Osama with death. I meant that we should do everything we can to actually kill him. We are at war. He is the commander of the enemy. As such he is a legitimate target just like Hitler. He declared war, has violated the laws of war, targeted civilians intentionally, grossly violated the geneva convention, and says he will keep on doing it. I see nothing immoral in us killing him. The just war theory and international law back me up.

How does this relate to the words of Our Lord in Matthew 5

38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, F44 what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
NRSV

And consider also Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=34882

Cardinal Ratzinger on the Abridged Version of Catechism

Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a “just war”?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.

The Holy Father’s judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

 

[gilliam]

Again, I posted the letter to get reactions from people TO THE POINTS IN THE LETTER. It is newsworthy, since he has not recinced it and since we are still at war with him. What do people think of the letter’s points?

 

[gilliam]

To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

Like it or not, we are at war with Bin Laden, unless you have some other plan.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

gilliam:

Like it or not, we are at war with Bin Laden, unless you have some other plan.

Let’s remember that Matt is a pacifist. His philosophy will never allow him to admit that any killing is justified.

By the way, I don’t recall Jesus saying that if a man murders one of your children, offer another one and maybe he’ll go away.

 

[cestusdei]

Matt,
If you check the ccc you will find that we are not a pacifist Church. We certainly prefer peace, but we do believe in just wars. You may find that uncomfortable, but that is our faith. We are not Quakers. If you were attacked you would call the police. They might kill your attacker. But that is HIS fault not yours or the police. Osama has vowed to kill us. We have every right to defend ourselves. And we fully intend to do so.

 

[Matt25]

StJeanneDArc:

By the way, I don’t recall Jesus saying that if a man murders one of your children, offer another one and maybe he’ll go away.

He didn’t. I haven’t heard anyone else saying it either. I also havent heard anyone explaining how the extra-judicial killing of bin Laden dovetails with~

38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
***43*** "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' ***44*** But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ***45*** so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

He didn’t. I haven’t heard anyone else saying it either. I also havent heard anyone explaining how the extra-judicial killing of bin Laden dovetails with~

38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

But what about the state? St. Paul instructs us on the responsibility of a state:

Romans 13:4: “For [the ruler] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain. He is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him that does evil.”

Pacifism is an interesting vocation, but it is not what Catholics are called to be. We are called to protect the innocent.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Again, I posted the letter to get reactions from people TO THE POINTS IN THE LETTER. It is newsworthy, since he has not recinced it and since we are still at war with him. What do people think of the letter’s points?

He has never acknowledged writing the letter in the first place so how could he rescind it?

The line

              As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: 
              
              (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

could equally well come from bin Laden or most of the people who post on this site. An illustration perhaps that Our Lord was very wise to go beyond an “eye for an eye”. The dictum that you cannot do evil so that good may come from it is not contrary to our Catholic faith

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

He has never acknowledged writing the letter in the first place so how could he rescind it?

It matches other things he has said on tape. I think you are living in a dream world if you think he didn’t write it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

gilliam:

It matches other things he has said on tape. I think you are living in a dream world if you think he didn’t write it.

God bless you for your patience in trying to “explain”( I have run out of it some time back) – but I think you are trying to fill a sieve.

 

[Matt25]

HagiaSophia:

God bless you for your patience in trying to “explain”( I have run out of it some time back) – but I think you are trying to fill a sieve.

The Lord bless you and keep you and make his face to shine uon you.

I make no statement about the provenance of the letter. I do wonder though how someone who never publically acknowledged authorship of a document could publically rescind it.

 

[FightingFat]

I think that many of the points made in the letter sound like points made on this forum all the time about morality etc.

I thought that it told us what the problems are, our goals and aims would be well served by taking a long hard look at the complaints and seeing if any of that criticism is justified.

You could almost alter the respondant and petitioner and it could be from us to them.

Extremist rhetoric is the same whatever book you read!

I am suprised this has been held here to be honest.

*FF ducks flying objects then runs as fast as he can!

 

[Norwich]

gilliam:

I am not a lawyer, but this doesn’t sound right. He admitted to the crime of his own volition. We have evidence of the crime. That is all that is needed. Frankly, I think, for whatever reason, you are putting much more into this than need be.

I agree that he is guilty, and I am against the death penalty. But he is also an enemy combantant who is still out to cause us harm. If we have to kill him to stop him, so be it. It is justified.

Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.

This is where life gets interesting.

If he’s an Enemy Combatant, that is a tacit acknowledgement that he has declared war on America, if he has declared war on America then he is a soldier apposed to America and (here we go!!!) if he is a soldier apposed to America then so are his adherents and (finally) if his adherants are soldiers then their incarcerartion in Cuba IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION!! See what happens when you try to re-write the law to suit your prejudices, thats why it always depicted as blind, no favours no favouratism.