So the Taliban wants proof, do they?

Great Debates
21

AFAIK, the US Government has not claimed to have produced any evidence. They are demanding that bin Laden be handed over under threat of violence.

Yes they are. The USA is one country and California and New Jersey are different jursidictions within it: that is why your analogy of inter-state extradition is bad.

Exactly my point.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was talking about the current situation rather than the situation 200 years ago.

If that is the case, then asking the Taliban to surrender bin Laden to the USA is an act of the utmost futility.

Doesn’t matter. If the USA produced its evidence, then the countries citing lack of evidence as their reason for failing to support the US would have to put up or shut up.

And being a wanted man is not the same as being a convicted criminal. As I pointed out in my earlier post, most countries would want to see that there was adequate evidence to try somebody before extraditing them. (Although if you accept the argument that this is an act of war, then he is not a criminal but an enemy soldier.)

That wasn’t my point at all. Even if the US succeeds in capturing (unlikely) or (slightly less unlikely) killing bin Laden, if they cannot produce pretty robust evidence of his involvement then the question of his guilt or innocence will always be open. How confident are you that bin Laden is responsible rather than, say, the government of Iraq or Libya? On what is that confidence based?

Intelligence is not the same as evidence.

The USA has asked the Taliban to extradite a resident of Afghanistan to the USA on charges of terrorism. The Taliban have asked asked the US to show that there is sufficient evidence of his involvement to warrant his extradition. The US has refused to provide any evidence, threatening a military attack on Afghanistan if the Taliban do not comply with the US’s demands. I’m not sure that it’s the Taliban who are “posturing” in this case.

22

I’m inclined to agree with you, Tom (about the posturing).

For instance, I have no idea how the legal process in a Muslim country as radical as Afghanistan would work in practice but, wouldn’t it be irrelevant anyway ? – Extradition from, for example the UK and US, to other Western countries takes – after the Appeal process – months and years. If there is an Afghani equivalent (or something similar is ‘devised’ by the Taliban), Bush isn’t going to wait for that, not least because the end result of the process isn’t quantifiable. It’s all just window dressing.

Of course, it’s equally possible the Taliban are also posturing / spinning – the problem is: It’s difficult to judge because the Taliban seemingly make the legal rules up as they go along.

23

This cite was provided by uglybeech in a thread on this very topic: U.S. to share details of bin Laden case with Pakistan.

That the Taliban is the “de facto” government is not “de facto” to most of the rest of the world. They are a rogue entity that has not seen any reason to comply with the rules of international society that most of the rest of the world does. To say that they have misbehaved badly is something of an understatement. Even Arab nations are severing ties with them, specifically because they have not complied with this “unsupported” U.S. demand to hand over bin Laden.

Those who point out that we would never just hand over a U.S. citizen under these circumstances, or that we would not expect this of France or England, are completely missing the point, I believe. The Taliban is NOT an entity like these countries, by virtue of the standing in the international community that its leaders themselves have crafted. To insist otherwise now is nonsense, and even a significant portion of the Arab world sees it as such.

There is an extremely strong case that bin Laden has been responsible for terroristic acts in the past and the Taliban has ignored that evidence. There is also a case for his involvement in the current attack, a case we will share with civilized partners, or so the cite above suggests.

Perhaps, as noted, this case includes intelligence that makes it clear that the Taliban is already complicit. Perhaps revealing the case publicly would indeed comprimise our intelligence sources exactly at a moment when we cannot afford to do so. There are many legitimate reasons during war when information must be withheld.

But, bottom line, we are well past the point where some pseudo-government body that has done nothing to act responsibly in the past can insist on the rest of us following some points of procedure it will define as fair. It is no longer an issue of “we need to be bigger than that,” any more than it would be if some “militia” laid claim to an uninhabitated island and started firing on passing ships in the name of its “sovereignty.”

“Sovereignty” entails a responsibility to the international community, one of a minimum level of cooperation and proper behavior, if one expects the benefits of that right to be enjoyed. Are we ignoring the Taliban’s demands to govern and protect its people exactly as it sees fit? Um, yeah, we are. No real debate here that I can see. But wait!–we wouldn’t do this to England! Um, no, we wouldn’t. Still no debate here.

I, for one, am not willing to wait out some charade of a trial (by a body the Taliban sees as fit) to see if the next attack will involve weapons of mass destruction or biological warfare. The U.S. did not create this urgency.

If you hold the opinion that the Taliban has not behaved irresonsibly in the past to a degree that comprimises their right to make demands, you are entitled to that opinion. Doesn’t even seem close, to me–they crossed a line long ago, and we were foolish enough as a nation to ignore the implications of this arrogance (and not just for the Taliban, either). We can no longer be foolish.

24

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**

No, but we supported the Taliban, presumably thinking anybody was better than the Russians.

25

And it’s indisputable that bin Laden has encouraged others to murder US citizens.

The Taliban knows damn well that bin Laden is a terrorist. They know damn well that he continues to incite others to terrorism. They know damn well that Al-Quaeda is a functioning and dangerous terrorist organization.

26

Nice to see someone around here understands this.

stoid

27

Agreed.
I think people just like to keep it simple.

28

No, we didn’t support the Taliban. During the Soviet-Afghan war the Taliban didn’t even exist yet. The Taliban was created after the Russians left. Some of the mujahadeen guerillas that we supported joined the Taliban, some fought against it. The “Northern Alliance” is mostly made up of mujahadeen that we supported.

It is true that after the Soviets pulled out that our interest in Afghanistan was over. And that left a power vacuum that enabled the Taliban to step in and take over the country. But we didn’t support the Taliban. At most we stood aside and decided that it would be too much trouble to do anything about them. Remember all the anti-Taliban threads of the last few months/years? Everyone was hoping that something could be done, but no one was willing to go in and fight. After the events of Sept 11, we are willing.

It is not just Osama bin Ladin, and it isn’t just his terrorist network, and it isn’t just the other terrorist networks. We also have to establish some sort of government in Afghanistan that is responsive to the outside world and that doesn’t allow terrorists a safe haven.

29

I think we all know how to deal with THAT eventuality…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88793

-Ben

30

Well, this may be worth reading, though there is no clear indication as to what the government will do with the report.

However, I’m not exactly sure it really matters anymore now that the Taliban has claimed that they don’t know where Bin Laden is.

31

I thought that Afghanistan said it would NEVER turn OBL to a secular court. Even if he was guilty they would have to try him.

Don’t they only recognized Islamic courts?

To turn him over to the USA would violate their ideas right? Or is this wrong.

Also an eye for an eye is a metaphor it doesn’t require exactness. In other words if your eye is blue and the guy you kill, his eye is brown doesn’t mean you get off. It is a life for life or lives.

32

Also a defacto government means government in fact. The Taliban are the defacto government to everyone.

They are NOT the dejure governement to most. I think only Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan recognize it as the dejure government or legitimate (legal) government.

We didn’t recognize the reds as the dejure government of China but they were the defacto government. Same as Rhodesia. It WAS independent in fact just not in legal terms.

33

I dunno, Lemur866, it seems that Benazir Bhutto supports JillGat’s version rather more closely than she supports yours.

Reagan and Co. specifically picked one group to support from among the Mujadaheen–and that group is, basically, the group now known as the Taliban.

(Which puts an interesting perspective on the claims that Clinton handcuffed our intelligence forces by insisting that they try to avoid using the scum of the earth to accomplish their goals. We are hearing renewed calls to let the CIA deal with whoever they need to in order to break up al-Qaeda, but it would seem that their track record of picking the “right” mean people is not very good.)

34

**
Neither was Hirohito. But somehow, we felt we were able to forge ahead in 1941 without an indictment.

35

Not exactly true, Milossarian. The message of the Japanese Ambassador (that got held up because their translators weren’t fast enough), contained a message that could certainly be seen as a Declaration of War. And, of course, the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philipines were conducted by recognizable units of the Japanese military and were announced to the Japanese people as actions of the Japanese nation.

bin Laden has denied (with whatever lack of credence he deserves) any involvement. No evidence has yet been presented that the government of Afghanistan had any part in the attack.

We need to destroy the terrorist movement, but it behooves us to attempt to follow the law simply to avaoid having our allies fade on us on the grounds that we have switch from a campaign of justice to a vendetta.

36

(OTOH, I had thought that bin Laden had been convicted in absentia of one of the earlier terrorist atacks.)

37

[[Everyone was hoping that something could be done, but no one was willing to go in and fight. After the events of Sept 11, we are willing.]]

And, recognizing that many of the people of Afghanistan are also victims of the Taliban, that they will starve without continued economic aid from the outside, HOW and WHO exactly will we fight?

38

According to Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer in this article, the HOWs and WHOs are at least beginning to crystallize:

**
Also note the differences he points out that ought to distinguish this conflict from the Viet Nam-like quagmire the Soviets endured. I hope he’s right at least in that regard.

39

**
For what it’s worth, John Dorschner, also of the Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote a very informative article. Some interesting tidbits from said article:

**
And for those wondering what sort of evidence supports bin Laden’s past terrorist activities (any convictions in absentia, or whatever), a confession seems to do nicely, at least for one attack:

**
Tom, this was yours:

What exactly does “follow the law” mean? If we provided evidence and the Taliban says they’ll hold a trial which may take a year or so (just as it would, minimum, in the U.S.) what do we do then? What do we do particularly since at that point we’ll have given credibility to their demands and received in return yet another “reasonable” response?

Do we hold off on the demand that they let us have access to the terrorist camps while they consider the evidence? Do we hold off on any strikes and hope like hell, counter to any prior evidence, that another escalated attack isn’t being planned? At what point do we simply recognize that these guys are NOT responsible members of the world community and their demands–by virtue of their own misbehavior–carry no weight?

I’m not trying to be flippant, but I keep hearing this over and over (the rule of law), and I can’t conceive how this could possibly play out practically.

40

We armed the Mujahideen but it’s hardly fair to blame us for the brain washing indoctrination that took place in Pakistan. That happened under her (Bhutto’s)nose. In any case, most of the current Taliban rank and file were trained after the Soviets left and after we had stopped the flow of arms. The remenents of the Mujahideen in the Northern Alliance are still upset with us for ending our military aid to them, but considering they were busy trying to wipe each other out when the Taliban invaded, it probably was for the best at that time.