At 21:49 14-9-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
> >>The Taliban have refused to hand over Bin Laden without conclusive
> >>proof of his involvement.
> >
> >And rightfully so.
>
>I thought you were a supporter of Western democracy? Since when, in
>Western democracy, is conclusive proof required for an arrest warrant?
AFAIK, a suspicion of someone's involvement in a crime and at least *some*
evidence are required for an arrest warrant.
Based on that, the US government could ask the Taliban to arrest Osama bin
Laden if the US government has at least some incriminating evidence.
However, given that Osama bin Laden's safety can not be guaranteed in the
US, I think it is reasonable that the Taliban demand conclusive proof
before handing him over.
If a country like Iraq would hold George W. Bush responsible for a
terrorist attack against Iraqi government officials, would the US hand over
GWB to the Iraqi government if there was no conclusive proof of GWB's guilt?
>Should not the jury be the determinant of conclusive proof?
No, the judge should determine that (I am opposed to the jury system).
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
