I have some conflicting thoughts about the whole evidence issue. 1) I have little doubt Bin Laden is behind the attacks. There's been ample evidence presented so far to make a conclusive case.
2) I believe in the rule of law, however. Only evidence that has been tested in a fair trial can be relied upon. 3) But, this isn't a entirely a criminal case. The attacks were an act of war. In war, you don't hold trials for your enemy (until after you've defeated them, at least). You act. 4) Others have said the same as point 3, and I agree with statements that the police do not share evidence with suspects prior to their arrests -- and for very good reasons. Sharing evidence with the Taliban (as if they really wanted it) would be tantamount to sharing evidence with suspected accomplices. There are sound legal reasons for not doing this, as in any criminal case. 5) But I do believe before any military strike, the president needs to come on TV and make his case, as a good prosecutor would. 6) Every attempt, then, should be made to bring Bin Laden into custody. I believe that if this is at all possible, it can be done with minimal, if any, loss of civilian life. The Taliban, as co-conspirators, can be dealt with in non-military ways, at least without direct U.S. intervention (though, I really want to see us bomb the shit out of the Taliban if it can be done so that only Taliban members and sympathizers are targeted). 7) But what if we capture Bin Laden alive? That hardly seems possible (he'd likely be shot by his own people before being captures, per his orders, supposedly), but what if he is. The U.S. then would have no choice but to put him on trial, and if he were put on trial, he would be a fair trial. He would have the right to a fair, vigorous defense. Any time you grant a defendant a fair trial, you open the door to acquittal. Could you imagine how the U.S. would look then. If O.J. can beat a murder rap when his DNA is all over the crime scene, don't you think Bin Laden could beat this? BTW: Did anybody watch "West Wing"? It was kind of preachy and a little condescending to it's audience, but it also had it's moments. I liked Josh Lyman's analogy -- "Islamic extremists are to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity." H. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
