At 12:13 AM 9/17/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>AFAIK, a suspicion of someone's involvement in a crime and at least *some*
>evidence are required for an arrest warrant.
We do have that evidence, and a warrant was subsequnetly issued.
>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.
Nix "ask." Try "Demand."
>However, given that Osama bin Laden's safety can not be guaranteed in the
>US,
You have got to be kidding me!
> I think it is reasonable that the Taliban demand conclusive proof
>before handing him over.
But how can conclusive proof be had without a trial? Shouldn't bin Laden
have a right to lawyers to counter the evidence? Likewise, how can the US
be sure that providing too detailed proof will not simply result in our
counter-terrorism methods and practices being passed on to him, resulting
in more deaths and more destruction?
>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?
No. The Iraqi government is not a legitimate government.
In the United States, there have been several examples of the "shoot first,
conduct trials later" judicial system reported. Perhape those reports
have not reached the Dutch media?
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
