At 20:42 16-9-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
> >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."
I would go for "ask". The Taliban will probably not hand over Osama bin
Laden regardless of whether you "ask" or "demand", but some basic
politeness has never hurt anyone.
> >However, given that Osama bin Laden's safety can not be guaranteed in the
> >US,
>
>You have got to be kidding me!
A bank robber might be fairly safe all the time between his arrest and his
conviction, but I doubt the same will go for Osama bin Laden. I think there
is be a good chance that someone might try to assassinate him as soon as he
sets foot on US soil. And if we want to give him a fair trial, we cannot
risk having some hothead kill him, now can we?
> > 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?
Then have a trial in his absence. Once the tribunal has come to the
conclusion that he is guilty, you can consider him a convicted criminal
that has gone fugitive, and ask Afghanistan to arrest him and hand him over
to the Tribunal so he can serve life in prison.
>Shouldn't bin Laden have a right to lawyers to counter the evidence?
Of course he has that right. But his lawyers do not need to have him
present in the courtroom to be able to defend him.
>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?
That is a risk you will have to take. His lawyers will want to know how the
evidence was obtained; if the answer is "sorry, we cannot reveal that
information", his lawyers will move that the evidence be removed. In a fair
trial, the evidence *will* then be removed. Then, due to lack of evidence,
you can not convict him for Tuesday's attacks.
> >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.
Oh, but it is! Every country in the world has recognised the Iraqi
government as the legitimate government of Iraq. Most of the world may not
be happy with Saddam Hussein; you may not be happy with Saddam Hussein. But
that does not mean he is not the legitimate president of Iraq.
>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?
Not as far as I know.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
