Bin Laden Son Plans to Sue U.S. Over “Criminal” Killing of His Father…

[busybody..]

Bin Laden Son Plans to Sue U.S. Over “Criminal” Killing of His Father…


Am I the only one who sees the possibility of a liberal activist judge going along with this?

(The Sun) — OSAMA Bin Laden’s son Omar was last night preparing to take the US to court over his dad’s “criminal” death — using BRITISH lawyers, it is claimed.

In an apparent open letter from Omar published on an Islamist website he says that his father’s burial at sea had humiliated his family.

The warlord’s fourth oldest son apparently adds he and his brothers and sisters reserve the right to take legal action against the United States to “determine the true fate of our vanished father”.

The news came as it emerged last night that Bin Laden’s youngest son was believed to be on the run — and may be plotting revenge.

Hamza Bin Laden, 20, was being groomed to succeed his terror boss father as head of al-Qaeda.

US forces thought they had eliminated him in their raid on Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. But it later emerged that he had been confused with his brother Khalid, 22.

Hamza was dubbed the Crown Prince of Terror after appearing in a jihadist film clutching a rifle aged just 15.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden’s deputy will join fiend Anwar al-Awlaki to form the new high command of al-Qaeda.

Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, 59, is expected to be named as its leader

 

[busybody..]

According to a new well-sourced, authoritative account, bin Laden begged for his life, “crying like a baby,” and exclaiming “it’s not me,” which rather sounds like confirmation to me, in any language.

A top Justice Department official has confirmed that, “He was blubbering like a baby, crying and crapping in his pants before he was shot in the head and chest. . . . At the same time, the coward was reaching for an AK-47 automatic weapon.”

The Justice Department source added that one of the SEALs shouted at bin Laden after he was shot, “Rot in hell, you evil mother——.” More: “He had gone crazy. He turned into a drug addict. Years ago, he had begun smoking opium to ease the pain from his failing kidneys. He was also using heroin—and he was regularly drugged up like a junkie.”

So where does this authoritative report appear? Why, the National Enquirer, of course (though it is not on the Enquirer’s web page for some reason). You may scoff, but hey, they were right about the entire John Edwards story. One question, though, concerns the Justice Department anonymous source they have quoted. The National Enquirer pays for news. Isn’t that a violation of Justice Department rules? Someone just might get waterboarded over this

 

[Karen Kraft]

Bin Laden Son Plans to Sue U.S. Over “Criminal” Killing of His Father…


Am I the only one who sees the possibility of a liberal activist judge going along with this?

****

Jury selection would be amusing.

 

[busybody..]

They outa KILL EM ALL!

The bin Laden Family Seizes the Moral High Ground

Today the family of Osama bin Laden--or is that families?--spoke up in his defense. Or, at least, in opposition to his killing. Where did they send their manifesto? The New York Times, of course:

I Omar Ossama Binladin and my brothers the lawful children and heirs of the Ossama Binladin (OBL) have noted wide coverage of the news of the death of our father, but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead.

So, doesn't Omar have any sisters? Well, sure, lots of them. But they aren't "the lawful children and heirs" of OBL. For those who are paying attention, Omar is already getting off on the wrong foot.

The point of this introduction is that Omar wants "conclusive evidence" of his father's death. An odd request, given that his own sister says she witnessed his death and al Qaeda is calling him a martyr. Sisters don't count, I guess, but al Qaeda?

If OBL has been killed in that operation as President of United States has claimed then we are just in questioning as per media reports that why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world.

The "truth" has already been revealed. Osama has released a number of videos in which he has proudly taken credit for September 11. The testimony of any number of his confederates, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confirms what happened. Virtually every detail is now known. There is no more "truth" to come out. There is a real irony in the bin Laden family's falling into the American liberal fallacy that nothing can ever be known except through a jury verdict--which certainly is not the prevailing rule of epistemology in the bin Ladens' native Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

If he has been summarily executed then, we question the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated but USA has set a very different example whereby right to have a fair trial, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law has been sacrificed on which western society is built and is standing when a trial of OBL was possible for any wrongdoing as that of Iraqi President Sadam Hussein and Serbian President Slobodan Miloševic'.

Let's not try to parse this incoherent appeal. I would merely note that the presumption of innocence is a right accorded to American citizens accused of crimes, and extended to aliens residing in the U.S. as a matter of policy. Bin Laden and his confederates, who on the most charitable construction have waged war against the U.S., are no more entitled to a presumption of innocence than an S.S. officer who was blown away during the Battle of the Bulge.

It is also unworthy of the special forces to shoot unarmed female family members of Binladen killing a female and that of one of his son.

This takes quite a bit of nerve. Under Omar's father's direction, al Qaeda has killed thousands of innocent people, a large number of them women and children, and has tried to kill many thousands more. In fact, there is no known instance in which bin Laden made the slightest effort to spare civilians, women, children, etc., in the course of his attacks. On the contrary, the whole point of his terrorist attacks was not to achieve some sort of military victory, but rather to sow terror, which is maximized by slaughtering wholly innocent people.

Isn't it noteworthy that bin Laden's sons expect an infinitely higher standard of conduct from America's special forces than from their own father? Actually, one of the remarkable aspects of the SEALs' raid was how few casualties were inflicted on the relatively--an important qualification--innocent occupants of the compound.

Most importantly, when it is a common knowledge that OBL's family is residing at one place outside KSA, why they were not contacted to receive his dead body. His sudden and un witnessed burial at sea has deprived the family of performing religious rights of a Muslim man.

I don't know about you, but I have a really hard time working up a lot of sympathy when it comes to dead bodies. Of the 3,000 or so people who were murdered by bin Laden and his confederates in the World Trade Center, how many bodies were turned over to their relatives for burial? Hardly any. How many bodies were recovered for the performance of "religious rights [sic]?" Almost none. Nearly all of the bodies were vaporized and lost forever. One good thing is, they weren't eaten by fish.

Without agreeing to the ways of OBL as to how he professed, believed and operated, We Omar Ossama Binladin, and my brothers, the lawful children of the Ossama Binladin (OBL) herewith demand an inquiry under UNO to reach to the accuracy of the facts as stated by United States into the fundamental question as to why our father was not arrested and tried but summarily executed without a court of law.

Yes, that is a good question. It is most easily answered by pointing out that combatants in a war--even a legitimate war, conducted under the age-old rules pertaining thereto, let alone a war of terrorism--are not "arrested and tried." Where possible, they are shot. Did Germany arrest French soldiers and send them back to the Reich for "trial" when they swept across France in 1940? Um, no. They shot or captured them. Likewise, when the Allies swept across France and into Germany in 1944, were they arresting every Wehrmacht soldier they came across, and sending him to the U.S. for "trial?" Of course not. Prisoners were taken, of course, but they weren't "arrested," they were simply detained until the hostilities were at an end. That doesn't even get to the fact that terrorists and pirates have historically been shot or hanged without ceremony, according to the rules of war.

In making this statement, we want to remind the world that Omar Ossam Binladin, the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances. Despite the difficulty of publicly disagreeing with our father, he never hesitated to condemn any violent attacks made by anyone, and expressed sorrow for the victims of any and all attacks. As he condemned our father, we now condemn the president of the United States for ordering the execution of unarmed men and women.

One thing we can say for the bin Ladens is that they know their audience. They sent their manifesto to the New York Times, knowing that it would be read by liberals who take their theme of moral equivalence seriously. So Omar opposed mass murder by his father. Great! So did we all. Unfortunately, like many readers of the Times, he cannot make the most elementary distinction between the evil of massacring thousands of random, innocent people and the good that results from putting that mass murderer out of business.

Finally comes the threat to lawyer up. The phalanx of liberal lawyers is unknown in the lands ruled by the bin Ladens and their allies; there, liberal lawyers generally turn up dead. But that doesn't stop Omar from calling on them to advance his family's interests:

Failure to answer these questions will force us to go to International forum for justice such as International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and UN must take notice of the violation of international law and assist us to have answers for which we are lawful in seeking them. A panel of eminent British and international lawyers is being constituted and a necessary action may be taken if no answers are furnished within 30 days of this statement.

I have no doubt that a "panel of eminent British and international lawyers" could be assembled on the bin Ladens' behalf--a new, international "dream team." Actually, an even better team could be assembled from liberal American lawyers who would be happy to advance the bin Ladens' cause. So we can all say a prayer of thanks to the Bush administration, which kept the U.S. out of the clutches of the International Criminal Court, over howls of protest from Democrats.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Toontweeker]

Hold the trial here in the U.S.

I can see it now... shortest trial in history.

Court Officer... "Do you, Hamza Bin Laden swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

Hamza Bin Laden... "In the name of Allah, I do."

BANG! Hamza Bin Laden shot between the eyes, falls dead.

Judge... "Court adjourned"

 

[busybody..]

OBL was murdered!

 

[Toontweeker]

So were the thousands of people that died on 9/11.

 

[koalabear]

Maybe we will get lucky and he will settle out of court.

 

[busybody..]

So were the thousands of people that died on 9/11.

2 wrongs dont make a right

 

[Karen Kraft]

2 wrongs dont make a right

Nope.

Two wrongs make a Left.

 

[MeeMie]

At least we'll know where to find him.

 

[Beco]

I know a couple of lawyers who would take that case.....the sleazebags

 

[koalabear]

Maybe they can team up with the Mex lawyers and make it a class action suit.

 

[Karen Kraft]

At least we'll know where to find him.

He should file his suit at GITMO, have the panel set a trial date in two weeks, then trail it for twenty-five years.

 

[Jagged]

Yeah good luck with that one...thought he and his mother disagreed with is father. I'm sure money will easy the pain.

 

[busybody..]

I know a couple of lawyers who would take that case.....the sleazebags

All of EURO PUKE

Half of America

and

MOST LAWYERS in the US will LOVE THIS!

If it was done under Bushco, he woulda been lynched already

Good thing BUSKWHEAT is COLORED

 

[contrifan32]

What side do you think Holder will take?

 

[busybody..]

he will have taken Bin Laden's sie if this were an R administration

his "law firm" was the prime firm representing GITMO TERRORISTS

he will end up throwing the SEALS under teh bus

 

[busybody..]

hope he names Obama and Holder as defendants

wanna see em BOTH be arrested when they visit England

 

[busybody..]

where is Pvt TURD CLASS Hogan weighing in with banalities?

 

[busybody..]

BBC Crowd Applauds Muslim Woman 'Depressed' by Osama Killing, Boos 'Elated' Man


By Tim Graham | May 11, 2011 | 16:14


In Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, Andrew Roberts, who just finished analyzing the Royal Wedding for NBC, penned a piece titled “Britain Goes Wobbly on Terror.” In it, he lamented how much British TV pundits despised American cheering for Osama bin Laden’s death:

By total contrast, when Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, told the BBC’s flagship program Question Time last Thursday that he felt “elated” at the news, he was booed, heckled, and almost shouted down.

Another panelist, the writer Yasmin Alibhai Brown, was applauded when she said she was “depressed” by the killing, as it “demeans a democracy and a president who has shown himself to be the Ugly American. He’s degraded American democracy, which had already degraded itself with torture and rendition.”

The former Liberal Party leader Paddy Ashdown was then cheered when he said: “I cannot rejoice on the killing of any man. I belong to a country that is founded on the principle of exercise of due process of law,” as though the United States was founded on some other idea.

The Biased BBC blog offered a similar analysis:

A remarkable example of BBC bias, or incompetence, call it what you like, came following Douglas's explanation that the West didn't need to "be seen" to use due process of law to deal with Osama Bin Laden in order to show that we are "better than them", because the West patently shows that this is the case the whole time. (Merely by being libertarian, democratic, and free as opposed to Islamic, oppressive and barbaric).

Paddy Ashdown, however, deliberately or through stupidity, totally misrepresented this by repeating indignantly, despite Douglas's protestations, that Douglas had merely said we don't have to show that we're better than Al Qaeda. (Cut to shot of Alibhai Brown's bizarre, exaggerated clapping.)

Meanwhile, [host] David Dimbleby who was filing his nails or tweeting, or not paying attention for reasons of his own, sat back and allowed this slanderous disingenuous drivel to continue unchallenged. (I'm fairly sure a shot of this was edited out of iPlayer.) But whether he couldn't see, or wouldn't see what what Paddy was getting away with, it was appalling chairpersonship.

Murray offered more details of British disdain for the Osama mission:

The Archbishop of Canterbury. Rowan Williams, told reporters: “I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.” Writer Henry Porter whined about “vital moral issues” in The Guardian. Add to that lawyers Geoffrey Robertson in The Daily Beast and Michael Mansfield in The Guardian defending bin Laden’s human rights, and a commentator on the radio station LBC saying that no one should celebrate the death because “we live in a multicultural society,” and you can see how utterly degenerate modern Britain has become when it comes to prosecuting the war against terror.

Murray wasn’t so shocked to hear this from pundits, but also found “pusillanimity” among ordinary people:

There was the lady at a cocktail party who told me “It’s those gun-toting Yanks at it again.” There was my son’s classics teacher informing his young charges that he thought bin Laden deserved the “dignity” of a fair trial. And there was the letter about the U.S. celebrations to the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph stating that terrorist cells “will be further fuelled by those inappropriate reactions by people who should have known better.” How? How, Ms. Tess Hyland of Bathurst, could al Qaeda possibly hate us more than they do already?

To the man who told me he didn’t believe bin Laden was buried at sea “according to Muslim rites,” I repeat that Mussolini was hung upside down on a meathook and then urinated upon. And as for those people who genuinely thought the United Nations and Pakistan should have been informed of the raid beforehand, Lord, give me strength!

Roberts concluded that all his pride over the Royal Wedding has faded: “Today all I feel is shame at my country’s pathetic reaction to your own great day of joy.”


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...d-osama-killing-boos-elated-man#ixzz1M58u183a

 

[Shagly]

That sounds good, choke up the court system.

 

[GiaCat]

Jury selection would be amusing.

http://www.tuckerweb.us/calumetclowns/images/group_2007.jpg

 

[busybody..]

haha