For the record, I believe that bin Laden is as guilty as all hell, and I’m behind America in the current situation, BUT…
Bush said “Taliban, hand him over”.
The Taliban replied “Can you show us some evidence first?”
Bush replied “I’m not going to negotiate. Hand him over or it’s war”.
???
If the situation was reversed, America wouldn’t hand over one of its residents without evidence. On top of that, Bush has declared that he wants bin Laden “dead or alive”, which kind of points to American not being interested in dragging him through the courts.
America has been the victim of the worst attack in the history of the world. This means that fear, anger and a range of other emotions are running high, and we need to see someone pay the price for the horrible wrong they committed. Bin Laden looks like the guy they’re after. But surely it’s not unreasonable of the Taliban to ask for some evidence before they hand him over to the people who want him “dead or alive”? Yet America seems to think this is a sign of aggression on behalf of the Taliban.
What did I miss here? Why does America expect the Taliban to obey them in this matter? Why are the Taliban wrong for asking for some proof?
Just a minor nitpick, but I’ve been watching coverage pretty much 12 hrs a day since the attacks (unemployed…) and not once did I hear Bush say “We want bin Laden dead or alive”. What he said was something along the lines of “It’s like those old Western posters from my youth: Wanted, dead or alive.” The media has picked up on the “dead or alive” and run with it apparently.
[sub]For the record I am not a fan of Bush, but feel he is doing a good job.[/sub]
It is commonly believed that the Taliban has no intention of handing him over.
They’re just stalling by asking for proof.
Plus they have him, I forget the legal term, guilty for the bombing of our Embassies with something like a warrant for his arrest. Damn. I can’t remember it and I just heard it on the news earlier.
Sorry. Someone will be along with a better explaination, I’m sure
He’s not even Afghani. They’re just harboring him (we think–there’s still no pictures of him giving a thumbs-up under the “Welcome to Afghanistan” sign). I can’t see why we’d need to show them jack diddly.
I also think that we really can’t show them too much. Kinda like the police not revealing all the evidence in a crime. If they reveal everything (which, IIRC, is what the Taliban is asking for), they might blow their case.
I don’t think we NEED to show evidence to the Taliban, but if you’re asking the country to support a war it’d be nice to supply some evidence to US. I imagine the international community would like some more evidence as well. Simply stating someone’s guilty doesn’t make it true, no matter how firmly it’s stated, or how many times it’s repeated.
If we’re going after someone they can demonstrate is obviously guilty, then hell yeah, let’s flatten them. I’d love to revenge served in a devastating manner. Let’s just make sure we get the right guy first. Personally, the assurances of the government have never done much for me. “Oh yeah, we have some real good evidence, we just won’t tell you what it is right now.”
Plus, we’ve declared a war against ALL terrorists! That’s a pretty damn broad approach! Will we be taking action in Northern Ireland? Will future actions be based on evidence that is too sensitive to share? How will terrorism be defined? Basically, are we saying we’ll decide who the terrorists are, and how we should deal with them?
This has the potential to snowball into something really scary.
Just picture the situation reversed, using some vivid goat imagery.
The American government gives Jose Bloggs permission to live in their country. One day, someone blows up the Afghani Goat Trading Pens, killing thousands and effectively destroying the Afghani economy. The Taliban suspects Jose Bloggs, who has made a career out of lecturing on the evils of Afghanistan, the Taliban and goats. While they have good reason to suspect Jose Bloggs, the Afghanistan government decide to play those cards close to their chest, and just demand that the US hand over Bloggs, or prepare to be bombed into the stone age. Would America say “Oh, you think our guy did it so we’ll just hand him over”, or would they say “As a resident of this country, Jose Bloggs has rights, and unless you are prepared to show some evidence that he is connected with the crimes, we refuse to extradite him”.
America wouldn’t put up with another country telling them what to do with someone they have permitted to live in their country, especially when they are being told “Evidence? We don’t need no stinking evidence”. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for Afghanistan to ask to be shown something linking Bin Laden to the crime. A stalling tactic? Possible, but what does it matter? You give them the evidence, and if they still refuse to play the game, you then make your threats against them.
America isn’t the boss of the world. They are a country, just like Afghanistan and all the other countries. They don’t have the right to make demands that they would be insulted by. They are not Afghanistan’s parents. Why are they being so seemingly unreasonable?
America is demanding that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden in a manner that suggests they have already tried him and found him guilty. There is still the remote possibility that Bin Laden isn’t behind it, and in any case, what ever happened to “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”?
On top of that, Bin Laden has been asked to leave, which means that, even though he hasn’t been charged with anything, the Taliban have decided that he is an undesirable.
Rasa, thanks for that information. I must confess, I haven’t heard Bush’s exact words on the subject. Cisco, appreciate the link. Arden Ranger, thanks for the explanation, but it still doesn’t gel for me.
ObL is a resisdent in that he is hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan. He was exiled from his home country and the Afghani people allowed him to live there, but he is not a resident, per se.
I do understand what you are saying, though I believe this to be different because, if nothing else, ObL has admitted to previous acts of terror (IIRC) and the current ruling party/oppressors of Afghanistan aren’t really the pillars of the community themselves, you know?
I assume that the US cannot give the kind of info Taliban want without revealing intelligence technique/network and jeopardizing further collection of evidence, at least for now.
A resident non-citizen has few rights in this country.
If Jose Bloggs were suspected of being involved in an act of terrorism in another country, he would likely be deported. If the Afghans presented a credible indictment of Jose for terrorism (which we have against ObL), he would be extradited on that basis.
The analogy doesn’t wash.
Remember, there are UN sanctions in place on Afganistan for failing to hand over OBL. To get those sanctions enacted, enough proof was given to the United Nations. Good enough for me.
Yes, see UN Security Council Resolutions 1267 (October 15, 1999) and 1333 (December 19, 2000), which demanded that bin Laden be turned over for trial for the embassy bombings in East Africa and imposed sanctions on the Taliban for not doing so. (Yeah, I know, I’ve posted those links in about three different places tonight. But this argument seems to be going on all over the place.)
Ahh, well those sanctions must be what I’ve been missing.
I couldn’t figure out why the US was offering nothing to convince the Taliban, with the exception of threats if they didn’t act. If Bin Laden already has orders out against him, then the position of the US makes more sense.
Something else to consider; the US govt. does not recognise the Taliban as the rightful govt. of Afghanistan. I think instead they still recognize the government-in-exile of President Burhanuddin Rabbani.
President Bush’s demand that the Taliban also hand over any foreign nationals they are holding (those aid workers accused of evangalizing perhaps?) also makes more sense (to me at least) in this context.
And another thing I simply do not get–why is the Taliban even bothering to argue with anyone on this?
bin Laden is wanted all over the world for other terrorist attacks. He’s not Afghani–he’s just hiding there. The Taliban is recognized by a grand total of how many other countries? Three? And I just read this morning on MSNBC.com that the United Arab Emirates have broken off diplomatic relations with them.