Well, the U.S., for one =)

Police question suspects all the time before later getting an arrest warrant for them if evidence dictates.

Interrogation does not necessarily = slapping cuffs on someone and hauling them off to jail for questioning =)

You have a decent knowledge of the judicial system and the way the law works here.. even better you can speak to it with fair eloquence.
Good on you sir!

Not directed to any of you in particular. Just wondering if the concept of "probable cause" of the US criminal law, has an equivalent here or in international law that could be relevant for the procedures of a case like this.

probable cause, [Wikipedia]. Says that the best-known definition of probable cause is:
— "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".

Also, another common definition is:
— "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

"Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. [/Wikipedia]

——————————
Neat debate!

No I'm drawing a distinction between three things - inquest, investigation and interrogation. An inquest is required by law whenever someone dies in suspicious circumstances as bin Laden did. A formal investigation, potentially useful in non fatal cases or where there hasn't been an inquest, is a process of inquiry to assemble evidence of a suspected illegality. An interrogation occurs when a person is taken into custody and questioned by law enforcement officers such as the police. The ICC as a court of last resort is concerned with situations where states or suspects can't or don't co-operate so it may issue a warrant of arrest where one or more of the three procedures did not take place.

km

No there's no such resolution - President Dubya came out with that one so he should be arrested as well for incitement to murder.
km

If the victims of OBL heard you talk about his being killed without any fair trial being involved your life would vanish fast KM.Get it through your thick skull KM the US did a great favor by getting rid of a tyrant and a murderer.GOD BLESS OBAMA AND THE NAVY SEALS.

Well, I have zero problem with a coroner's inquest ...

Over here, at least, an investigation is also useful (if not required) in cases that do involve fatalities; and it is not contingent on wether an inquest has been conducted or not ...

Thankfully, an interrogation over here does not require taking a person into custody =)


Regardless, even with your representation of these procedures, after all of these posts, here's what I'm left with:

1) We can have a coroner's inquest, which doesn't require arresting anybody and putting them on trial ...

2) We can have an investigation, which doesn't require arresting anybody and putting them on trial ...

3) We can have an interrogation, which doesn't require arresting anybody and putting them on trial ...

or,

4) We can skip all the above, arrest someone and put them on trial ...


I believe you started-out calling for 4); have since said that you'd like to have 1) and 3) happen, with which I agree; and I still don't really understand your objection to 2) ...

Well, a person can choose whether to co-operate with an inquiry but he can be compelled by subpeona to give evidence to an inquest so it's more effective. Moreover the coroner is uniquely qualified to ascertain the cause of death and can reach a verdict of 'unlawful killing' which would be more than enough reason to commence a prosecution. Any evidence that could put to an inquiry can be put before the coroner so a separate process would seem otiose.

km

I've got no idea what you're talking about - what do mean "my life would vanish fast"?


No I'm saying that there's reason to suspect he was murdered... since he was entitled to a fair trial there now needs to be due process of the suspects.

km

It sounds like coroners' inquests have a far broader scope over there than here. An inquest here is held to determine cause, time and manner of death -- when a medical examination alone is insufficient to establish such facts -- and limits the scope to those subjects. Establishing such things as motive, opportunity, events leading up to a killing, events afterward or even potential suspects is not the Coroner's core purpose, although obviously evidence relevant to those may also be gathered. That's why an inquest here is usually conducted in concert with a law enforcement investigation, which has a broader range of inquiry ...

In any case, when you're calling for the arrest and trial of arguably the most powerful person on the planet for fairly heinous crimes, I'd think you'd want the most thorough gathering of evidence possible even if that involved redundant processes ...