Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Taliban offer bin-Laden up for trial

By bil in MLP
Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 02:09:28 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The Taliban have again offered to turn over bin-Laden for trial in a third country (see this article in the UK Guardian) however, unlike the offer from the 4th of October (UK Telegraph), this time they have not asked for evidence against him to be presented first, only that the bombing should stop.

The US have dismissed the proposal.


There has been talk recently of the Taliban foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil (a moderate), defecting, or at least disappearing, with rumour of his whereabouts flying freely. It now seems likely that he was in Pakistan (flown there courtesy of Pakistani intelligence) trying to negotiate the hand over of bin-Laden in return for a cessation of bombing (note Colin Powell was in Pakistan at the time, although he refused a meeting).

Previous offers have revolved round bin-Laden appearing before a tribunal in Pakistan under Shar'ia law which would then decide to try him on the spot or hand him over to the US. However now all it seems to need is that the bombing stop and a third country is proposed. Its not clear if the "third country" has to fit any criteria, such as being an Islamic country, or not being a coalition member (although I would expect the chances of the UK being acceptable are minimal), or if any particular legal code should be used (e.g. Shar'ia law). I guess we'll never know as the bombing continues.

The question is now why has the US rejected the deal?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Why was the deal rejected?
o He must be tried in the US 6%
o We don't want him on trial, just dead. 15%
o The "evidence" wont stand up to a defence lawyer 23%
o This isn't to do with bin-Laden but with destroying the Taliban 21%
o It's obviously an offer they won't or can't to keep. 6%
o Why stop now just when we're having fun!! 16%
o Other (please explain) 9%

Votes: 119
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o this
o Guardian
o 4th of October
o Telegraph
o Also by bil


Display: Sort:
Taliban offer bin-Laden up for trial | 84 comments (79 topical, 5 editorial, 1 hidden)
How many times do we have to do this? -1 (2.26 / 15) (#1)
by premier on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 07:40:41 AM EST

We wont accept the deal because to prove his guilt we would have disclose sources of information that would thus then be known to foreign agencies, and most likely killed.

Not to mention the fact that they want the trail in another Middle-Eastern country, which would obviously be biased. On top of that, this "war" is not only about the capture and punishment of Bin Laden, but about a global terrorism. Even if Bin Laden were found guilty on international charges, the rings would continue to operate.

Please dont post this questio again, it has already been submitted and summarily rejected several times in the last few days. You have not added any new information or insights that the previous submissions did not already containt.

Once more (3.75 / 4) (#3)
by bil on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:04:11 AM EST

I havn't seen it in the story queue at all (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting it)

Not to mention the fact that they want the trail in another Middle-Eastern country, which would obviously be biased. On top of that, this "war" is not only about the capture and punishment of Bin Laden, but about a global terrorism. Even if Bin Laden were found guilty on international charges, the rings would continue to operate.

The rings will continue to operate even if you turn Afghanistan into a radioactive wasteland, but this way you "get your man". I saw no demand that it should be a middle eastern country, and anyway many of the governments hate his guts as much as the US (Saudi Arabia for one)

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Um... (4.00 / 5) (#4)
by TheophileEscargot on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:05:23 AM EST

The point of this article is that for the first time they have NOT asked for evidence to be produced before handing him over.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]
It's what the US asked for! (3.57 / 7) (#5)
by drquick on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:09:55 AM EST

You wrote:
We wont accept the deal because to prove his guilt we would have disclose sources of information that would thus then be known to foreign agencies, and most likely killed.
The taliban is only asking for the bombings to stop. No information would be disclosed! As I understand this is excactly what the US asked for. Maybe not that Bin Laden would be sent to a third country. But still, what grounds is there for future bombings? Maybe bombing is more "important" than the demands we could see?

I see the question as valid and it should be discussed!

[ Parent ]

Factually wrong... (2.33 / 3) (#25)
by TheCaptain on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:55:07 PM EST

As I understand this is excactly what the US asked for.

Go look up what the U.S. asked for. Then we can debate the reason why they don't see it as enough of a cause to stop bombing.

[ Parent ]
Again (3.33 / 3) (#40)
by Robert S Gormley on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 04:08:24 AM EST

So what about the US nationals openly providing money to the IRA's terrorism efforts in Northern Ireland and England? I don't see the carrier battle groups being sent up to Boston.

[ Parent ]
T.S. (none / 0) (#59)
by Robert S Gormley on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:34:53 AM EST

If you have evidence you can't use, it's not Afghanistan's problem. Stop kicking the shit out of people just because that's not going to work in your favour. If the federal agencies are providing evidence in any criminal case where there is the risk of compromising inside agents, then they have a decision to make. Use the evidence and compromise the source, or wait for evidence they can use without.

Going in with carrier battle groups to satisfy bloodlust and need for revenge against someone, anyone is *not* the answer. It's terrorism, too.

[ Parent ]

I don't believe (2.44 / 29) (#2)
by MugginsM on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 07:42:38 AM EST

I don't believe this war was ever about Bin Laden. If he's tried it doesn't matter if he is found guilty or not, the US will have less support for continuing the bombing of Afghanistan.

This war is about the US trying to prove it has a bigger penis than anyone else, and it won't stop until everyone's too scared to disagree.

- MugginsM

E X A C T L Y (3.00 / 5) (#16)
by snowlion on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 06:13:21 PM EST

Which is why I'm so ashamed to be a USian right now.

Actually, on the part of your standard Joe and Alice citizens, I think a lot more of it is just simply fear. You should see what our news broadcasts are like: They do extreme closeups on desperately fearful and crying people, and relay along a ticker on the bottom of the screen: "2,300 possible cases of Anthrax tonight...".


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
What offer? (4.40 / 10) (#6)
by DesiredUsername on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:29:34 AM EST

First, good writeup from a neutrality point of view. Not blazingly one-sided like most of the stories have been recently.

Second, I don't see that the US could be said to have "rejected" anything here. A Taliban minister failed to meet with Powell to make the proposal in the first place. And even if he had, he apparently defected so what authority would he have had to make a deal? For that matter (since I don't know how the Taliban is set up) would he have had a authority anyway?

Play 囲碁
Thankyou. (3.33 / 3) (#14)
by bil on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 09:38:45 AM EST

First, good writeup from a neutrality point of view. Not blazingly one-sided like most of the stories have been recently.

Thank you. Personnally I think we should have taken them up on their original offer, but I'm open to persuasion.

I don't see that the US could be said to have "rejected" anything here. A Taliban minister failed to meet with Powell to make the proposal in the first place. And even if he had, he apparently defected so what authority would he have had to make a deal? For that matter (since I don't know how the Taliban is set up) would he have had a authority anyway?

According to the article he asked to see Powell but didn't (no reason given), and we are still bombing (more then ever). Maybe "ignored" is a better word, maybe the US government didn't get it (I doubt this if the newspapers have, but you never know)

As to wether the minister has the authority, good question. I assume the stories of him defecting were just rumours and had no basis in truth and so he still carrys whatever authority he had (if not, and he is back in Kabhul then I hope his god has mercy on him because the Taliban sure wont). It seems to me that he must have some authority to be foriegn minister and to have the Pakistani secret service deal with him (I doubt they'd waste their time if he didn't). I dont understand the workings of the Taliban power structure either but I guess he must have had the blessing of the high-up Taliban people, otherwise trying to cut a deal would almost certainly have signed his death warrent.

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

No authority (3.33 / 3) (#33)
by svampa on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 07:01:31 PM EST

I have read an article where say that afgans are a little tired of Al-Qaida, not because they don't like Bin Laden, neither because they are responsible of bombing

They are tired because they are a second government, and is full of foreign people, (Saudi, Emirat, Argel, Palestina etc..) and behave like masters

According with this article taliban gov hasn't the means or the power to arrest Bin Laden.



[ Parent ]
More likely... (none / 0) (#72)
by urgan on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 06:49:03 PM EST

... the Al-Qaeda to turn over the Taliban to the US. It's naive, or criminal, to expect otherwise.

[ Parent ]
WHAT??? (none / 0) (#78)
by bil on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 07:28:47 AM EST

I'm sorry if my judgement of current affairs seems criminal to you, however if you want me to stand trial for my views I'm more then willing to oblige.

In other words CRIMINAL? How so? Naive I can understand (although I dont agree) but since when has expecting something to happen been a crime?

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

The criminal is not you. (none / 0) (#83)
by urgan on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 05:39:45 PM EST

I'm talking of the ones who take decisions, the ones who create crisis, wars and instability for money. Don't be offended, you misread me.

[ Parent ]
Some points (3.33 / 6) (#7)
by ariux on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:30:26 AM EST

They're trying to get us talking, bring us to the table - which we haven't been at any point.

The US is after a deterrent against future attackers and their supporters. Anything that doesn't supply this, however "just" it sounds, won't accomplish the goal of preventing more thousands of US civilians from being killed by suicidal goons.

Nothing will (4.00 / 4) (#9)
by Simon Kinahan on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:42:34 AM EST

If you have a small number of people who are fanatical enough, living in an environment of fear and resentment, under variously despotic regimes, no amount of millitary or legal action will stop things like September 11th from happening. To think otherwise is to adopt the mentality of a police state and try to apply it to the whole world.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
Yes... (3.33 / 3) (#10)
by Rocky on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:46:31 AM EST

...that's true. But making an example of Afghanistan might make those who are one the edge think twice.

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
[ Parent ]
I see your point (3.50 / 4) (#11)
by ariux on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 09:01:44 AM EST

On the other hand, fixing such things can take a long time (and there's no really reliable recipe), and the present danger can't wait.

The best that's going to happen at this point is a carrot and stick approach. I just hope that, once they're through with the stick, they're farsighted enough to remember to provide the carrot.

[ Parent ]

Fanatics and Sticks (4.00 / 3) (#19)
by Simon Kinahan on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 06:42:05 PM EST

I see your point too. There's no doubt that fanatics, in themselves, are unlikely ever to change their minds. Thats pretty much what the word means.

I guess my main concern is that historically, whenever great powers choose to beat fanatics with sticks, they end up creating more fanatics, because the kind of world view that creates fanatics in the first place feeds off hopelessness and oppression. Carrots provided after the fact rarely seem to do much good.

The best way to deal with fanatics, I think, is to transform the environment in which they are operating, so the ordinary people come have an interest in the status quo, so that it is better for them than the promised utopia, whether it be religious, communist, nationalist or some combiantion thereof.

It seems to me that in an environment as desperate as Afghanistan, such a policy would not have been very hard to put into effect six months ago, though it may be harder now. Look at Osama bin Laden: he's a moderately rich Saudi construction engineer with some particular extreme political ideas. If he can win the loyalty of the Taleban regime, just imagine what a power on the scale of the USA could do if it wanted to.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
Missing (obvious) Poll Option. (3.44 / 9) (#8)
by Hillgiant on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:39:08 AM EST

We do not negotiate with terrorists.


-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny

Incorrect. (3.12 / 8) (#13)
by FredBloggs on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 09:06:24 AM EST

Otherwise, how did the Americans give all those arms, training and money to the Taliban for all those years? And in Nicaragua. And Iran. In fact, it would appear that the American government *only* negotiates with terrorists.

I think you are confusing "terrorists" with "people who attack American interests".



[ Parent ]
Nope. (2.60 / 5) (#24)
by Anonymous 6522 on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:32:02 PM EST

I think you are confusing "terrorists" with "people who attack American interests".

I don't even think you know what the word terrorist means.

Terrorists are the people who attack American interests. They do not become terrorists until they attack those interests or become plolitically inconvenient. There is no objective definition of terrorist, it's all subjective and dependant on your position.

[ Parent ]

E-prime (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by FredBloggs on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 05:43:48 AM EST

"Terrorists are the people who attack American interests"

Notice the use of the word `are`.

a IS b. 1+1 IS 2.

This shows you are attempting to be objective. Disproving your suggestion that its subjective. Try not to say `Is` or `Are`. Say instead `seems to me`, or `i believe`. You`re only fooling yourself when you say `are`.
Otherwise it looks like you are suggesting that, for example, during the Vietnam war, it was the Vietnamese who were the terrorists (as they attacked American interests), rather then the true terrorists - the Americans - who had little difficulty killing/torturing civilians; my definition of a terrorist.


[ Parent ]
Error. (none / 0) (#62)
by Hillgiant on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:56:41 AM EST

Perhaps you are confusing the muhajadeen (sp?) with the taliban?

So, what do we call the organization(s) responsible for killing thousands of civilians in a single stroke? "Freedom fighters"? Any freedom fighter should be judged by the amount of freedom they allow after they gain power.


-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny
[ Parent ]

Dresden. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by FredBloggs on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 11:24:34 AM EST

Over 100,000 civilians killed in a single night.

And i`ll thank you to reply, with arguments, rather than just to rate my comments with 1 point - two can play at that game.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that was dumb. (none / 0) (#66)
by Hillgiant on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 12:06:40 PM EST

Killing a city just because you have extra bombs is kinda stupid.

Normally I do not make excuses for my ratings. However, since we have wandered so far afield, I will accomodate you. Your comment, in my opinion, was pendantic and did nothing to contribute to the discussion.

-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny
[ Parent ]

Lucky for you (none / 0) (#74)
by FredBloggs on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 05:13:58 AM EST

i dont give a shit about ratings (its a shame you cant turn off the score display as easily as you can disable your ability to rate comments), but pedantic? This is the the site criminally ill-informed idiots come to to talk shit!


[ Parent ]
Easy... (4.69 / 13) (#12)
by TheCaptain on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 09:05:13 AM EST

This isn't just about Bin Laden. This was never about just one man, nor is it about simple revenge. There are more people with their hands in the events of Sept. 11, and other events (embassy bombings etc.) than just him.

The Taliban are looking for a scapegoat here to make the bombings stop. It's sad that anyone would actually buy into that line of crap.

agreed. (4.66 / 6) (#18)
by theantix on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 06:33:15 PM EST

This isn't just about Bin Laden. This was never about just one man, nor is it about simple revenge. There are more people with their hands in the events of Sept. 11, and other events (embassy bombings etc.) than just him.

The Taliban are looking for a scapegoat here to make the bombings stop. It's sad that anyone would actually buy into that line of crap.

Agreed, agreed. I always figured that the US made a mistake to focus on Bin Laden so prominently. It's easy to justify the current campaign without any personal involved from Bin Laden, but I suppose the reason they did it is that the American public needs a figurehead to be the focal point of their frustration. But now, it leaves them with the unconfortable position of getting most of what they asked for, however they still aren't going to stop because it's not what they really want or need.

It's a PR disaster, especially in the muslim world where I suspect this will be seen as proof that the Americans never any evidence against Afganistan. It's going to turn a lot of moderates against them in places where they badly need moderate support. Why they didn't think of this happening earlier is unexcusable... it's almost as if they let the Taliban outsmart them!

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]

Demands (5.00 / 11) (#20)
by finial on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 06:51:11 PM EST

Exactly. The turning over of bin Laden alone was never the demand. For those who seem to have forgotten, here are the original demands given in Bush's speech on Sept. 20 to a joint session of congress:
"Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

"These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.

"The Taliban must act and act immediately.

"They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

To review:

  1. Release all foreign nationals
  2. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers
  3. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp
  4. hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
  5. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

Questions?

[ Parent ]

Interesting... (2.50 / 2) (#50)
by bil on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 06:03:53 AM EST

"They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

I hadn't noticed this untill now but if the Taliban are currently "sharing the fate" that will be visited on the terrorists, and the US is currently trying to destroy the Taliban without negotiating with them, this means that the US has absolutly no intention of trying the terrorist suspects in a court of law but are actually just going to kill them. No attempt at justice, just assasination of people the CIA says were involved.

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Justice (4.50 / 4) (#52)
by bgarcia on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 07:13:53 AM EST

...the US is currently trying to destroy the Taliban without negotiating with them...
What is with you people?

Do you walk through life with blinders on?

Do you remember the first several days after the attacks at all???

Don't you remember the negotiations happening at that time? Even after the U.S. finally got frustrated with the Taliban, Pakistan continued trying to talk with the Taliban to convince them to meet the U.S. demands. The Taliban refused all along.

And don't you remember the bombings of the U.S. embassies in 1998? The U.S. even showed the Taliban evidence of al-Queda's involvement, but they simply refused to believe it.

the US has absolutly no intention of trying the terrorist suspects in a court of law but are actually just going to kill them.
If evil people have the backing of a government with a military, you don't send in policemen to arrest them - you send in troops to kill them.
No attempt at justice...
This is justice.

[ Parent ]
Demands vs. negotiation (4.50 / 2) (#53)
by StrontiumDog on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 08:16:57 AM EST

Don't you remember the negotiations happening at that time? Even after the U.S. finally got frustrated with the Taliban, Pakistan continued trying to talk with the Taliban to convince them to meet the U.S. demands.
Making unconditional demands is not the same thing as "negotiation", Mr. bgarcia. The U.S. did not "negotiate", they made unconditional demands that were explicitly not subject to negotiation.
And don't you remember the bombings of the U.S. embassies in 1998? The U.S. even showed the Taliban evidence of al-Queda's involvement, but they simply refused to believe it.
As I seem to recall, the U.S. also "negotiated" in this instance with cruise missiles. Given that the Taliban are stubborn and uncompromising to begin with, what is the evidence that the U.S. ever seriously intended to negotiate with the Taliban for anything?

[ Parent ]
Thank you (3.50 / 2) (#54)
by bil on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 09:11:08 AM EST

Couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you.

As I seem to recall, the U.S. also "negotiated" in this instance with cruise missiles.

Just to add to add a touch of irony to this have a look here (UK Guardian again). It seems bin-Laden sold the unexploded cruise missiles used to "negotiate" with him to the Chinese and made a tidy profit, not quite the result intended I suspect... :)

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

demands and negotiation (none / 0) (#60)
by bgarcia on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:46:43 AM EST

Making unconditional demands is not the same thing as "negotiation", Mr. bgarcia.
You've obviously never taken part in negotiations.

Negotiations usually include grandstanding. And both sides have done their share of grandstanding.

The problem was, the Taliban underestimated the resolve of the U.S. government. They failed to realize that our reactions would be different than when our ships and embassies are bombed.

As I seem to recall, the U.S. also "negotiated" in this instance with cruise missiles.
Your selective recollection is incredible.

Negotiations had broken down by that point. The taliban refused to do anything about al-Qaeda and bin Laden, and the U.S. did not wish to go to war over the matter. But they thought that they had located the al-Qaeda leadership and decided to lob a missile at them.

[ Parent ]

Fill title in here (none / 0) (#69)
by StrontiumDog on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 12:53:44 PM EST

You've obviously never taken part in negotiations. Negotiations usually include grandstanding. And both sides have done their share of grandstanding.
Grandstanding? From the US, maybe. But unconditional demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and any other unspecified individuals whom the US may suspect of terrorism, is not "negotiation". Saying that "all nations are either with us, or against us" is not negotiation.

In contrast the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden on the condition that the US provide evidence of his complicity. Now, this may have been "grandstanding" on the part of the Taliban, but the US never took them up on their offer, so we'll never know for sure.

So I ask you again, was there ever any sign that the US was prepared to negotiate at any time?

[ Parent ]

Subject line is overrated... (none / 0) (#75)
by bgarcia on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 06:04:31 AM EST

Grandstanding? From the US, maybe.
Yes, and also from the Taliban.
But unconditional demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and any other unspecified individuals whom the US may suspect of terrorism, is not "negotiation". Saying that "all nations are either with us, or against us" is not negotiation.
And what you are quoting is from the speech that President Bush gave to the American people. It is NOT a transcript of what was discussed between the two governments.

I'm sure that the U.S. wouldn't budge much during the negotiations, but they did occur. It is still a negotiation. The fact that the two sides couldn't come to an agreement does not change the fact.

In contrast the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden on the condition that the US provide evidence of his complicity.
No, that is not what the Taliban offered.

What they actually did was to first say that he was a guest of their country and would not be forced to leave.

The next day, they said that bin Laden had left the country.

Finally, they ended up offering to extradite bin Laden, but with a few strings attached:

  • The Taliban wanted to see the evidence first
  • He would go to a "neutral" muslim country to stand trial
  • The U.S. would lift sanctions against Afghanistan
  • The U.S. would stop supplying arms to the Northern Alliance
So the U.S. finally (and rightfully) came to the conclusion that there was no point in further negotiations, and decided to deliver the ultimatum.
So I ask you again, was there ever any sign that the US was prepared to negotiate at any time?
And once I again I answer: THEY DID!

The negotiations were short, and they failed.

[ Parent ]

Time for me to bring out the evidence. (none / 0) (#77)
by StrontiumDog on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 06:58:16 AM EST

Mr. bgarcia, you are making this up. You are pulling your "facts" from thin air. It's time I brought in some hard facts to settle the issue:

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON -- The United States rejected on Sunday a call by the Taliban to open talks on handing over Osama bin Laden, saying Afghanistan's government has aided terrorists and should be removed from power for the sake of the Afghan people.In Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, said bin Laden is under the control of Taliban forces. He said his government is willing to discuss bin Laden's fate if Washington offers proof linking him to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

"The position of the two countries is very different," he said. "They are thinking of direct attacks. We are thinking of negotiation. They have provided no evidence, but they want the man."

But Card ruled out negotiations, as the administration has done since the beginning.[Emphasis mine.] "We've told the Taliban government what they should be doing," he said. "They've got to turn not only Osama bin Laden over, but all of the operatives of the al-Qa'eda organization. They've got to stop being a haven where terrorists can train."

More quotes?

From ABC News: "No Deal; US Rejects Taliban negotiation overture"

From the US Department of State: "State Official Sees No Need to Talk to Taliban. Deputy Secretary Armitage says U.S. terms non-negotiable".

From 10 Downing Street UK government press release: "It was clear what they had to do. It had been spelled out many times. As we had said throughout, there was no question of a negotiation. It was up to the Taliban to act. "

No negotiations ever occurred. Period. And it has been stated United States policy from the very beginning that there would be no negotiations. Period. The two sides never met. Period.

You make me wonder if you actually know what the word "negotiation" means.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget the other facts! (none / 0) (#79)
by bgarcia on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 10:34:57 AM EST

You are pulling your "facts" from thin air.
No, but I was pulling them from memory. I suppose I should provide some links to back them up.

The Taliban's initial position was that there was no way bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Ref: [1] [2]

You make me wonder if you actually know what the word "negotiation" means.
Cool, a personal attack! I assure you that I know what it means. I think your problem is that you are ignoring U.S.-Taliban relations from the last 5 years. From newsmax:
The U.S. has been trying to negotiate bin Laden's extradition for several months...
And here's an article from the Asia Times that describes the negotiations between the U.S. and Taliban:
...the Taliban gave the Americans three options....

The United States rejected all of these, and countered that bin Laden be handed to a country other than the US, where he would stand trial. The Taliban government found this unacceptable.

The position of both sides has not changed, making it wishful thinking that agreement can be reached on extradition.

Gee, sounds like a negotiation to me!

Please note that these negotiations have been going on for *years*, ever since the embassy bombings. The U.S. did not give up immediately.

But when years of negotiations prove fruitless, even when evidence is provided, then was there much of a point in negotiating more than a few days after the WTC attack, when the Taliban's position does not change at all?

[ Parent ]

Mr. bgarcia, stop trying to obfuscate (none / 0) (#80)
by StrontiumDog on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 12:22:50 PM EST

This was the original statement I replied to:
What is with you people? Do you walk through life with blinders on? Do you remember the first several days after the attacks at all??? Don't you remember the negotiations happening at that time? Even after the U.S. finally got frustrated with the Taliban, Pakistan continued trying to talk with the Taliban to convince them to meet the U.S. demands. The Taliban refused all along
and I have provided sufficient evidence that the US refused to negotiate with the Taliban from day one, never intended to negotiate in the first place, and never made a secret of that fact. There is nothing wrong with my memory, thank you.

If you want to enter a discussion about the "negotiations" between the US and the Taliban after the Embassy bombings in 1998, you're welcome, but do not obfuscate the issue.

[ Parent ]

History counts. (none / 0) (#82)
by bgarcia on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 01:34:46 PM EST

I have provided sufficient evidence that the US refused to negotiate with the Taliban from day one, never intended to negotiate in the first place, and never made a secret of that fact.
And I provided evidence that negotiations have been ongoing for years, yet you continue to simply cover your ears and say "I can't hear you".

Look, history did not begin on Sept. 11th 2001. Bin Laden has been a wanted man for several years now. Negotiations with the Taliban have been ongoing for several years now.

And you're going to make the argument that the U.S. didn't negotiate, simply because they delivered an ultimatum several days after the WTC attack?

If you want to enter a discussion about the "negotiations" between the US and the Taliban after the Embassy bombings in 1998, you're welcome, but do not obfuscate the issue.
It's not obfuscation. It's the whole point!!!!!!

We've been talking to these assholes forever to no avail. And after the WTC attacks, they STILL weren't relenting on their position.

Negotiations with Pakistan after the WTC attacks caused them to completely change their stance on bin Laden, and that was in a matter of days.

But the Taliban decided to stand their ground. There was no longer a point in talking to them.

Don't ignore the history. The history counts here.

[ Parent ]

No justice! (4.00 / 2) (#55)
by bil on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 09:44:19 AM EST

If evil people have the backing of a government with a military, you don't send in policemen to arrest them - you send in troops to kill them.

Define evil.

The WTC terrorists presumably belived that the US financial system is evil and it has the support of the US government (almost by definition) and therefore the most powerfull military on Earth, therefore by your logic they were right to do what they did.

The US government has no monopoly on Right or Justice, nor is it the living embodyment of Good (TM). Democracy is nice but it dosn't make everything you do better then anybody else.

Just because its you killing rather then them, its still terrorism, just because its you shooting rather then them its still murder, just because its you ignoring the law rather then them its still not justice. What seperates the US from terrorists is that the US operates within the rule of law however once you step outside that rule and start killing merely on suspicion...

*SIGH* I'm beginning to think that "If you have a military, everything looks like a war"

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Evil (4.50 / 2) (#56)
by bgarcia on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:23:23 AM EST

The WTC terrorists presumably belived that the US financial system is evil and it has the support of the US government (almost by definition) and therefore the most powerfull military on Earth, therefore by your logic they were right to do what they did.
The thousands of dead people who used to be part of the "US financial system" never killed anybody.
Just because its you killing rather then them, its still terrorism, just because its you shooting rather then them its still murder, just because its you ignoring the law rather then them its still not justice.
Very eloquent.

But it doesn't change reality. Several thousand Americans are dead. They were killed by a group of terrorists that are based in Afghanistan, with the backing of the Afghanistan government.

We've put up with them in the past. We've sat idly by as they bombed two American Embassies. We did nothing when they attacked a U.S. Navy ship. We showed great restraint in the past.

But 6000 dead in New York City was the I-beam that broke the camel's back.

You can argue that the U.S. created al-Qaeda. You can argue that we abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion ended. You can argue that the Iraq embargo is hurting more than helping.

But it doesn't matter. People are dead. Innocent people. And Americans demand that the government do something to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

[ Parent ]

... is Live spelled backwards (none / 0) (#61)
by StrontiumDog on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:50:15 AM EST

They were killed by a group of terrorists that are based in Afghanistan, with the backing of the Afghanistan government.
The terrorists of Sept 11 were not Afghans, had never been to Afghanistan, and had not trained in Afghanistan. There is no evidence that they were backed by the Taliban, nor is the US government claiming the Taliban are directly involved either. The US government is saying in essence that the Taliban are backing other people, who are in turn accused of backing the hijackers, who in turn rammed the WTC.
We've sat idly by as they bombed two American Embassies. We did nothing when they attacked a U.S. Navy ship. We showed great restraint in the past.
If by "restraint" you mean bombing Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles, then I agree with you.

[ Parent ]
backing... (none / 0) (#64)
by bgarcia on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 11:31:05 AM EST

The US government is saying in essence that the Taliban are backing other people, who are in turn accused of backing the hijackers, who in turn rammed the WTC.
Yes, that's how I understand it too. I apoligize for over-simplifying the case.
If by "restraint" you mean bombing Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles, then I agree with you.
In comparison to the current attacks, yes, I think it did show restraint. But I also think it was a mistake, and I'm sure it was these types of actions that cause people to question U.S. behavior in the current war.

[ Parent ]
Two wrongs dont make a right. (4.50 / 2) (#65)
by bil on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 11:38:34 AM EST

The thousands of dead people who used to be part of the "US financial system" never killed anybody.

Eek! I can see a rerun of the anti-globalisation debate coming on.

Ok so you had several thousand dead and you belive that you know who was responsible. How does this make the assasination of those people right? Why is it that when they see people as evil and kill them they are wrong, but when you do it its right? Why is it that when they step outside the law its Evil, but when you do it its good? You might claim you're idea of evil is superior to theirs but from where I stand you are both murdering people.

If you want justice you have to make those responsible stand trial in a free and fair courtroom and find them guilty, otherwise you are just doing what they do. However harsh the crime the justice of the lynch mob is murder, thats why we ban them and thats why we have courts.

Nobody denies that the US has a right to seek justice and that those responsible should be punished, but it must be done within the law

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Hand over all terrorists (none / 0) (#84)
by vectro on Sun Nov 04, 2001 at 12:04:43 AM EST

It would be impossible for any country to "hand over every terrorist." Can you imagine if a country told the US to hand over all terrorists? It's absurd.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Incoming message from Captain Obvious (4.44 / 18) (#15)
by trhurler on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 06:10:18 PM EST

First off, accepting the Taliban's offer constitutes recognizing them as the government of Afghanistan. We're not going to do that; that's the whole reason Bush refuses to negotiate.

Second, the Taliban's offer is not what Bush said the US wants in order to end the situation. There is no talk of destroying bin Laden's organization or handing over the US citizens they're holding hostage or anything else except bin Laden, and he's not enough.

Third, even if they wanted to, they probably couldn't stop us now; they had a month to do the right thing, and they instead thumbed their noses and said "fuck the Great Satan, we can handle him!" Now is a bit late to change their minds; the Taliban is the former illegitimate government of Afghanistan at this point, as the UN has already agreed in talks with the US.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Hmmm (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by PhillipW on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 06:30:03 PM EST

It seems #1 and #2 there are not in line with each other. The US government said they would not bomb Afghanistan had they handed Bin Laden over originally, which is negotiating with them.

That said, I think you are right about the other 2. To say that the govt doesn't want an end to the Taliban's rule, Bin Laden's organization, and the hostages released would require that someone be very thick headed.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
More of an ultimatum than negotiation... (4.00 / 2) (#30)
by Whyaduck on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 02:49:17 AM EST

Bush demanded that the entire Al Quaeda commad structure (including bin Laden) be turned over to the United States. As far as I know, no counter-offer from the Taleban has ever led to a change in U.S. demands, so I'd say that the Taleban were definitely issued an ultimatum that they've chosen to ignore. Also, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. State Department has never let its personnel talk with members of the Taleban government. The only contacts have been second hand via Pakistan. Over all, I'd say the administration hasn't been sending any signals hinting at an openness to negotiation.


Oh Lydia, oh Lydia, say, have you met Lydia?
Lydia The Tattooed Lady.
She has eyes that folks adore so,
and a torso even more so.

[ Parent ]
Taliban's Legitimacy (3.33 / 3) (#22)
by Valdrax on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 07:43:17 PM EST

Actually, I don't think we have any difficulty at this point in accepting them as the current government. We've attacked legitimate governments before in recent memory and been perfectly fine with the idea of knocking them over if we could. Iraq and Serbia come to mind. We're not negotiating because it's not enough, and even if it was we don't believe that they'll pull through on their end of the bargain.

Also, from what I've heard the UN isn't ruling out the possibility of leaving the Taliban or what's left of it in power if it will provide the most stable government in the future. For all the human right violations that they've done, the Taliban did provide the area with stability and order after the Soviets were kicked out. Previously all those groups we armed against the Soviets were running around like little groups of bandits. It's doubtful that the Taliban as an organization will last through the transition, but they are looking for moderate members to be part of the future of Afghanistan if any are interested.

[ Parent ]
Um... (4.50 / 4) (#23)
by trhurler on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 08:01:24 PM EST

Perhaps the meaning of "legitimate" to diplomats is unfamiliar to you. The only governments which ever recognized the Taliban as legitimate were Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Pakistan. At this point, only Pakistan remains, and that only for reasons of political convenience. As far as the US is concerned, the Taliban may be the de facto government, but we have never recognized them as the legitimate government, and in diplomatic circles, there is a world of difference.

As for the Taliban remaining in power, they're not even remotely talking about that. They're talking about maybe letting some of the most moderate Taliban elements participate as part of a coalition government primarily composed of people more moderate than any of the Taliban factions. The result would not be the Taliban, and would not act like the Taliban, or so we hope anyway.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
And who exactly... (2.66 / 3) (#39)
by Robert S Gormley on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 04:04:45 AM EST

... is the US to determine who the government of another country should be?

[ Parent ]
uh huh (none / 0) (#45)
by tjb on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 05:42:38 PM EST

And who, exactly, was the US to decide what the governments of Germany and Japan were to be?

Tim

[ Parent ]
Notice that... (4.00 / 1) (#68)
by trhurler on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 12:46:02 PM EST

we're quietly letting the successor government to the Taliban form itself. The one thing we're clear on is that the Taliban has no claim to power. What right do we have? Roughly 6000 dead bodies worth of right. If you deliberately house people who carry out such plans(and make no mistake, the Taliban DOES know the nature of bin Laden and his goons,) you are as responsible as if your own military forces did such things.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
It isn't the US (none / 0) (#70)
by epepke on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 01:30:10 PM EST

It's every country in the world, including Australia. This is not a case like mainland China, the government of which the US refused to recognize for a long time. The entire world, with the exception of Pakistan, refuses to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government.

The recognition of governments is a case where a form of de facto world representational democracy rules. If you think that the US for some reason should be excluded from this, please state so.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Northern Alliance (none / 0) (#73)
by Robert S Gormley on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 11:19:29 PM EST

The Northern Alliance is no less legitimate a government than the Taliban is. Removing one non-elected ruling group to install another which is a little more compliant to the will of "the west". How about *no* government is installed, and elections are held, a la East Timor? That worked. The US and UN claiming that "they hope the Northern Alliance do not take unfair advantage of the situation" is patently see through when you had media interviewing them asking if they knew when the US raids were to begin, and a leader asked "Well, what time is it now?"

[ Parent ]
1,2,3... (none / 0) (#57)
by bil on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:24:45 AM EST

Firstly, personnally I would say declaring war (whatever you want to call it) on them gives them a certain de facto recognition... either way I still say that you can negotiate with a group without recognising it as the ruler of anywhere, and certainly without recognising any of its aims, claims, or rules as legitimate.

Secondly, the current rumour is that the aid workers being held for preaching christianity will be found innocent and released fairly soon (they have already released Yvonne Ridley after being satisfied that she wasn't a spy, so if they are found innocent I belive they will be taken to Pakistan and let go). These people are of course being held for allegedly breaking the law, so including them in the list of demends makes this whole affair a giant jailbreak ;)

Thirdly,
even if they wanted to, they probably couldn't stop us now;

They do want to, thats the point of the story.

they had a month to do the right thing, and they instead thumbed their noses and said "fuck the Great Satan, we can handle him!"

Or as we like to translate it "hey lets negotiate shall we".

Refusing to talk, even when they you've been offered pretty much everything you claim to want merely because of a minor disagreement over terminology, seems very petty not to mention stupid, and as for killing people just because their government were a little less then enthusiastic to sit up and beg when the US told them to well...

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Jailbreak (none / 0) (#58)
by Ken Arromdee on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 10:32:01 AM EST

If the Taliban isn't a legitimate government, then getting the aid workers out isn't a jailbreak. If you lock someone up and you're not a government, that's not jail, that's just kidnapping.

[ Parent ]
I see the problem. (4.00 / 3) (#67)
by trhurler on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 12:43:04 PM EST

personnally I would say declaring war (whatever you want to call it) on them gives them a certain de facto recognition...
We didn't declare war on them. Congress at no time did any such thing.
either way I still say that you can negotiate with a group without recognising it as the ruler of anywhere
Which is all well and good in biltopia, but this is the real world, where if you negotiate with someone claiming to be a government who has control over territory, that is what is meant by diplomats when they say "recognizing" that government. The problem is that there is no existing distinction between "dealing with" and "recognizing."
Secondly, the current rumour is that the aid workers being held for preaching christianity will be found innocent and released fairly soon
Where'd you hear that? Probably made up from whole cloth by some antiwar protester or other. Even if not, rumors and speculation are a poor basis for freeing innocent people.
These people are of course being held for allegedly breaking the law, so including them in the list of demends makes this whole affair a giant jailbreak ;)
This goes back to "not recognizing the Taliban." As long as we don't do that, their action is called "kidnapping," not "holding for trial."
They do want to, thats the point of the story.
No. They want us to stop the bombing in exchange for what is at most a token gesture of cooperation that would not deter terrorism, but rather make it worse. They want to do so because they know all this.
Or as we like to translate it "hey lets negotiate shall we".
After what they've done and what the people they've knowingly and deliberately given shelter to have done, negotiation is an absurd notion. They know that these people are terrorists; they have seen the training camps, and they have good reason to believe these men were involved with the Cole and embassy bombings. Negotiate? You're clearly off your rocker. Aside from legitimizing their government in the eyes of the world, this would also amount to selling out our own people for political convenience. They know what we want, and we're not going to budge on that anyway; either they could do what we said, or they could face the consequences of deliberately harboring mass murderers.
Refusing to talk, even when they you've been offered pretty much everything you claim to want
They offered us bin Laden. They did not offer to shut down his organization, destroy their facilities, hand over any of our aid workers, and so on. They offered us one part of one thing we want. That's not even close to what you said. Does reality impinge in any way upon your consciousness?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Insults are the last resort of... (none / 0) (#76)
by bil on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 06:49:56 AM EST

Ahh I always like to start my day by being insulted. It really helps to persuade me that the other side is right...

We didn't declare war on them. Congress at no time did any such thing.

True, but you are dropping large quantities of ordannance on them, making demands that assume they have control over territory, and planning a "post Taliban" government (not a "legitimate government", but a "post Taliban" one) now we can sit here and discuss the niceties of diplomatic phrasing and the exact meaning of words but you are for all intents and purposes at war with a government. Nothing you're doing would change if you were attacking the Iraqi regime for example, only the diplomats would notice the difference.

Where'd you hear that? Probably made up from whole cloth by some antiwar protester or other. Even if not, rumors and speculation are a poor basis for freeing innocent people.

Here (I'm sure I've seen it mentioned on TV news but cant find a link). Not all of us rely for our view on the world on what we can make up. Yes its only a rumour, but I thought it was an interesting rumour and I would give it a certain amount of (cautious) credibility.

This goes back to "not recognizing the Taliban." As long as we don't do that, their action is called "kidnapping," not "holding for trial."

Kidnapping of course implies a criminal act done without recourse to any system of rules, whereas the Taliban follow a version of Shar'ia law. That said, my comment about it being a jailbreak was rather flipant (thus the smiley) and wasn't really meant to be taken seriously. I dont really belive that their plight has much to do with the bombing except in a "oh and while your at it..." kind of way.

No. They want us to stop the bombing in exchange for what is at most a token gesture of cooperation that would not deter terrorism, but rather make it worse. They want to do so because they know all this.

Putting on trial your lead suspect in an independant court is a token gesture? If you think that convicting bin-Laden will make terrorism worse quite what do you think killing him and his comrades (or martyring them for the cause as some people will call it) will do?

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Insults are the first amusement of the smartasses (3.00 / 1) (#81)
by trhurler on Tue Oct 23, 2001 at 12:32:20 PM EST

now we can sit here and discuss the niceties of diplomatic phrasing and the exact meaning of words but you are for all intents and purposes at war with a government.
It is easy to have an armed conflict with an entity you do not give diplomatic recognition to. I fail to see why this confuses you; there are no diplomats and no negotiations involved in this matter.
Yes its only a rumour, but I thought it was an interesting rumour and I would give it a certain amount of (cautious) credibility.
For what reason? Would you give the US government the same benefit of the doubt if it said it intended not to harass Sklyarov's coworkers if they visited? If not, how do you explain having more trust in the Taliban than the US government?
Kidnapping of course implies a criminal act done without recourse to any system of rules, whereas the Taliban follow a version of Shar'ia law.
So if I grab you off the street and hold you in a musty cell with questionable safety and horrible nutrition for weeks on end, as long as I have a prewritten set of rules and someone to act as a judge, I can declare myself immune from prosecution? That's pretty sweet.
Putting on trial your lead suspect in an independant court is a token gesture?
Yes, because they're offering it as a way to stop the bombing, which of course would then be hard to get international support for again, and that way, they don't have to go after bin Laden's organization. bin Laden is just one man; we need his whole organization.
If you think that convicting bin-Laden will make terrorism worse quite what do you think killing him and his comrades (or martyring them for the cause as some people will call it) will do?
bin Laden and his men use the best secrecy techniques. They have small, very tight cells, very restricted communications, they've been known to use intelligence agency-style methods to conceal their activities - nobody is going to do better. If we show that we can nail them, and not just get a figurehead or a key man, but really nail them, then I think terrorism in the short term is not a viable proposition, and to the extent that it is, it will be one or two guys and a truck or something, not a massive, coordinated plan with state sponsorship.

By the way, international experts(most not from the US) are now saying that the anthrax we've been finding is probably either stolen Russian material or else Iraqi, and could possibly be both(ie, stolen, sent to Iraq, then to terrorists.) There's a good chance you'll see the conflict in Iraq that you mentioned, and I must admit, if we find out that idiot Saddam sent anthrax over here, I'd have no trouble with whatever military action we took to see his head on a stake - and neither would the vast majority of the rest of the civilized world, for that matter. I'm beginning to think Bush's use of terms like "evil" may not be entirely inappropriate, as overly dramatic as it may seem.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Wow, you answered your own question. (3.33 / 9) (#21)
by regeya on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 07:28:10 PM EST

The Taliban have again offered to turn over bin-Laden for trial in a third country

*snip*

The question is now why has the US rejected the deal?

End of story. As my country's leadership has said, they want bin Laden, no dxceptions. Turning bin Laden over to another country isn't what the U.S. asked for. Therefore, deal rejected.

Aren't you glad you asked?

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

A fair trial? (3.00 / 4) (#26)
by mmcc on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 09:22:15 PM EST

How exactly is OBL going to get a fair trial in the USA?

    As my country's leadership has said, they want bin Laden, no dxceptions.
And just because a little kid wants candy, do you give it?



[ Parent ]

An anti-US bigot? (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by regeya on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 10:39:01 PM EST

How exactly is OBL going to get a fair trial in the USA?

Probably by going to court. Duh.

Come on, people; what's the guarantee that OBL will get a fair trial, for or against him, in any country?

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Justice for OBL? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by mmcc on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 10:16:41 PM EST

The US is proclaiming itself to be the victim of the crime. That's OK, but if the US is the victim, then how can a US court be impartial?

Why can't OBL be tried in a third country? Because he wouldn't be punished enough???

It doesn't matter anyhow, OBL won't make it out of the Middle East alive. That would be a perfect outcome for the US government, since they would never have to justify their actions...



[ Parent ]

Bad analogy (4.00 / 2) (#28)
by ucblockhead on Fri Oct 19, 2001 at 10:45:58 PM EST

A better analogy:

"Where does an 800 lb Gorilla sit?"


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

What IF he is declared innocent ? (4.60 / 5) (#31)
by alfadir on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 05:51:20 AM EST

I think the US is counting on that Bin-Laden won't appear in any courtroom. Even if he would be put on trial in the US, what IF he would be declared innocent ? (counting on that he gets a fair trial)

The US campain would then be illegal, or ? At least much harder to explain to the world..



Fantasy (3.00 / 1) (#32)
by svampa on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 06:44:16 PM EST

That is absurd, perhaps some people could think the trial was not just, but he can't be innocent.

If you ask me if he is guilty, I would say "probably". But with the poofs they have, no attorney will dare to put a mafia capo in a court. But this is not a common trial, this is high policy, a strength domonstration.

Perhaps the secret proofs will show he is guilty. But he must be guilty



[ Parent ]
he must be guilty (3.00 / 1) (#34)
by QuantumG on Sat Oct 20, 2001 at 07:29:59 PM EST

there goes that whole concept of innocence before the law. sigh. It's likely that most of the "evidence" they have is hearsay and conjecture. It would all be thrown out in a US court as tainted and Osama wouldn't need Johnny Cochran to do it either. must be guilty.. pfft.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Proof (3.00 / 1) (#38)
by Robert S Gormley on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 03:54:51 AM EST

It's interesting that the US won't show the intelligence it supposedly has to Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were to demand the extradition of a US citizen, and refuse to show just cause for said extradition, the US government would tell them to go to hell. And rightly so. Why is it different now?

And yes, they've supposedly shown said evidence to Pakistan. A few days after lifting sanctions against the country that have been in place for years, and right on top of a US$1.7 billion aid package. Is it any surprise that Pakistan is "offering support"?

[ Parent ]

difference (none / 0) (#42)
by svampa on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 06:04:51 AM EST

The difference is that Afganistan can't bomb USA for three weeks.



[ Parent ]
Precisely (none / 0) (#44)
by Robert S Gormley on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 09:20:44 AM EST

And some elements of the US administration think that it's acceptable to forego certain aspects of "justice" as a concept in order to satify other aspects.

[ Parent ]
Devils Advocat.. (none / 0) (#43)
by alfadir on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 06:57:31 AM EST

I think any lawyer is doing his best in court. He must do that, especially in such a high profile (imaginary) case. Most things point towards the fact that he is guilty, but also the most information I have got about the case is from CNN.

The Haag tribunal has released some people that was tried for war crimes in former Yugoslavia. Not many, but a few. The UN court is also based in a "neutral" country, I think it will be very hard, not to say impossible to have a fair trial in the US.

My main point in my comment was to think the thought, what if the evidence is not enought ? What if this turns out to be an OJ Simpson thing? Everybody assumes he is guilty, but he is not according to the court. The US cannot afford such a thing hence bin-Laden will never set foot in a US courtroom. That is also why a third country solution is not good either. There the US have even less controll over the court.. He will probably be killed..

One has to think about that bin-Laden has spent alot of years covering his tracks so although the evidence clearly points to him, that might not hold in a real court. If you were the president, would you bet on a conviction ?

I would like to see that bin-Laden dissapears from the world stage no matter how. Violent extremists are not good for the society no matter if they are using religion or race or any other reason to promote themselves, but they will sadly probably always exist..

I passed JFK airport Sept 10 evening, on my way to Salt Lake City from Europe. I hope the guilty people are caught. My comment was just a thought about why bin-Laden never will go to court.



[ Parent ]
To tell the truth ... (4.50 / 4) (#41)
by ragnarok on Sun Oct 21, 2001 at 04:38:53 AM EST

"The US have dismissed the proposal."

I suppose it's all to do with Bush declaring that this is a war on terrorism, not a war on bin Laden as such. I suppose he can't be seen to go back on his word.

Though I fail to see what bombing the rubble in Afghanistan into even finer powder has to do with any war against terrorism.

"And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies
It is about terrorism (none / 0) (#51)
by bgarcia on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 07:03:47 AM EST

Your cynicism is remarkable.
I suppose he can't be seen to go back on his word.
I suppose it never occurred to you that he might just want to do the right thing? That he doesn't give a shit about "going back on his word", but instead wants to do everything in his (considerable) power to make sure the tragedies of September 11th are never repeated?
Though I fail to see what bombing the rubble in Afghanistan into even finer powder has to do with any war against terrorism.
Well then, maybe you should crawl out from under your rock more often. But I will summarize for you:

The terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks are based in Afghanistan. They are also being protected by the current Afghanistan government. Therefore, we are doing everything in our power to remove their asses from the planet.

And that means we have to attack them in Afghanistan.

[ Parent ]

Seen you around before, haven't I? (3.00 / 2) (#71)
by StrontiumDog on Mon Oct 22, 2001 at 06:25:57 PM EST

The terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks are based in Afghanistan. They are also being protected by the current Afghanistan government. Therefore, we are doing everything in our power to remove their asses from the planet. And that means we have to attack them in Afghanistan.
Ah, Mr. bgarcia, we meet again. How's life? Good. Here we go again, then.
  • The terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks are dead. As in doorknob.
  • Before their deaths, they were not based in Afghanistan.
  • Not being based in Afghanistan, they were not being protected by the Afghan government either.
  • The dead terrorists did not recieve their training in Afghanistan.
  • Afghanistan is being bombed because Osama Bin Laden, who has admitted to terrorist attacks against the US in the past, is residing there under Taliban protection.
  • Bin Laden has denied carrying out the current attack. To date, the US has not publicly provided one shred of evidence regarding Bin Laden's supposed involvement in the Sept 11 attacks.
  • The US has not even specified exactly what Bin Laden's actual role in the WTC attacks was supposed to be.
  • Despite not specifying exactly what Bin Laden was supposed to have done, and despite the fact that no evidence has been supplied to prove Bin Laden's unspecified crime, Afghanistan is being bombed and militarily invaded.
  • And finally, if the US was really interested in wiping out the terrorists asses from the planet, they would do well to look at Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That's where the Sept. 11 terrorists actually came from, you see. Not Afghanistan. But as long as the US government props up the corrupt, repressive dictatorships of these countries with literally billions of dollars each year, resentment and dissent in these countries is going to breed more terrorists.
But I guess you didn't want to hear all this, did you? I guess bombing Afghanistan is an easier "solution" than draining the gargantuan cesspit of US Middle Eastern affairs. Besides, it makes for less spectacular TV, doesn't it though?

[ Parent ]
Taliban offer bin-Laden up for trial | 84 comments (79 topical, 5 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!