4 ms·
Firstly, Osama (not Usama) Bil Laden. Secondly, 11 years without trial or even a concrete charge against "an accused terrorist" would be something USA and its
by pavanky 14y ago
Firstly, Osama (not Usama) Bil Laden.
Secondly, 11 years without trial or even a concrete charge against "an accused terrorist" would be something USA and its citizens would be appalled about if Russia or China did so to their "terrorists".
Thirdly, I am against hunger strikes when they can be avoided. Simply because they can turn political and in turn can be abused. Gandhi did abuse it a bit. Indian politicians and activists do it a lot. But eleven years of being held without solid evidence or being charge is just fucked up. This is being done out of desperation and fatigue rather than ideology.
- yebyen 14y agoThere are three vowel sounds in Arabic A, E/I, O/U (fatha, kasra, dhamma) I don't understand why one would insist that he lives (prohibit hunger strike) and at the same time refuse him a trial. If he is guilty of some crime, then let him stand trial and suffer the consequences. If there is really no evidence against him then he should be freed. If the feeding tube is in your hand and you don't try for one of these options, you are not human.
- vxNsr 14y agoActually in most official Documents he's known as Usama Bin Laden thus UBL (Also he's referred to that way throughout ZDT, if you want a cultural reference) He's not just an accused terrorist, he's a enemy combatant and a POW, totally different ball game. And while the US might be "appalled if Russia or China did it," it would be for political reasons (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and not ethical (reasons). Finally, this thread has gone on far enough, I'm stepping out. I will not be replying to anymore posts.
- gadders 14y agoCan't you keep prisoners of war for the duration of a war?