So the Taliban wants proof, do they?

[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.

**
I agree to an extent, but as the attacked country that is now defending itself, it’s up to the U.S. government to decide whether the most appropriate means of responding to this is through military force, law enforcement, or both. And it’s up to the U.S. government to decide the combinations and percentages of each.

In other words, when you kill 6500+ of our citizens, you don’t get to prevent our military from acting by not declaring war, wearing uniforms or not all residing within certain borders.

The U.S. government will decide if, when, where and how it’s appropriate to act (or react) militarily; coordinating that when appropriate with other affected nations.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by TomH *

[Different States in the USA] are not merely “two jurisdictions in the same country”.

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.

No, Tom, different states are not merely different jurisdictions of the same country. The US Constitution specifaclly recognizes the limited sovereignty of the states.

However, from the US standpoint … this is not considered an ordinary crime but rather an act of war – in which case the circumstances are different.

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

No it’s not. It is common to ask for surrender before a major attack, even if one does expect it to be given.

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.

This isn’t about what Afghanistan wants, this is about what is reasonable for Afghanistan to demand.

(Although if you accept the argument that this is an act of war, then he is not a criminal but an enemy soldier.)

How are those mutually exclusive?

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.

Do you really think that if proof were given, they wouldhand him over?

[tracer]

Markxxx wrote:

[The Taliban] 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.

The UAE withdrew their official recognition of the Taliban government just a few days ago.