As reported by CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/15/ret.retaliation.facts/index.html
What is the U.S. Government afraid of by Bin Laden being turned over to a third-party country?
Isn’t this the way it ought to be?
BTW: I’m an American and support action to (1) bring the culprits of the WTC/Pentagon Attacks to justice including those that aid and abet those culprits; and (2) wage an ongoing attack on terrorism (terms of which should be laid out by the United Nations)
I’m willing to bet the reasons we rejected this offer were:
1 - They didn’t say they were willing to give him up, just that they were willing to discuss giving him up.
2 - We have provided sufficient evidence of bin Laden’s involvement such that several other countries have been persuaded. Why do you think the Taliban is not persuaded? They want more evidence than anyone can give. Someone in another thread, somewhere, stated that the particular type of Islamic law the Taliban uses, requires eyewitness evidence in order to convict. We simply cannot provide eyewitness accounts that bin Laden was involved. All of the eyewitnesses of the actual airplane hijackings are dead; they were on the planes.
3 - “A third country” probably refers to a country which holds the same views on legality as the Taliban does. I doubt they would be willing to give him over to Canada, or England, or any non-Islamic state. While there is no chance of him getting an “unbiased jury” in any part of the world, his chances for acquittal would be much higher in another Islamic country.
4 - I’d also imagine that during these “discussions” about handing bin Laden over, the Taliban would want a temporary cease-fire. Giving them more time to hide and to plan further sponsorship of insidious terrorist acts.
These are just my guesses though. 
The Taliban attached conditions to turning OBL over to the US. They (the Taliban) want it proved to them beyond doubt that OBL did the bombings. This could take years if it could be done at all. Meanwhile, the US stops bombing, the Taliban stay in power and regroup/rebuild their defenses. Also, I personally don’t want OBL turned over to anyone except the US. The Bush administration was right not to get sucked into that one.
Testy.
… and it didn’t seem to be working the first time anyway. This server really really dislikes me! 
I’m willing to bet the reasons we rejected this offer were:
1 - They didn’t say they were willing to give him up, just that they were willing to discuss giving him up.
2 - We have provided sufficient evidence of bin Laden’s involvement such that several other countries have been persuaded. Why do you think the Taliban is not persuaded? They want more evidence than anyone can give. Someone in another thread, somewhere, stated that the particular type of Islamic law the Taliban uses, requires eyewitness evidence in order to convict. We simply cannot provide eyewitness accounts that bin Laden was involved. All of the eyewitnesses of the actual airplane hijackings are dead; they were on the planes.
3 - “A third country” probably refers to a country which holds the same views on legality as the Taliban does. I doubt they would be willing to give him over to Canada, or England, or any non-Islamic state. While there is no chance of him getting an “unbiased jury” in any part of the world, his chances for acquittal would be much higher in another Islamic country.
4 - I’d also imagine that during these “discussions” about handing bin Laden over, the Taliban would take advantage of the cease-fire to hide and to plan further sponsorship of insidious terrorist acts.
These are just my guesses though.
And one other note: the Taliban made this offer before IIRC, and it really smacks of propaganda. They have no intention of giving up OBL, but by proposing a situation where they “would” they can point to it and say they are trying to be reasonable, but the Big Bad U.S. is just a war-mongering state.
Also, when asked which countries they would be willing to turn ObL over to, the Taliban declined to list any suitable countries until the “evidence” had been presented. It sounds like what they really want is an opportunity to try the evidence in the court of world opinion.
**
That’s not the demand we made. Though if they want to deliver him to a third party nation and then have that nation deliver him to us I suppose that’d be fine.
Marc
Whatever happened to “Wanted: Dead or Alive?”
The Taleban knows its days are numbered and only a miracle will keep it from collapsing as the strikes continue. Their “offer” to discuss the Bin laden issue is in all probability nothing but a play for extra time, which of course the US will not and should not grant.
The Taliban seems committed to a war of extermination. I doubt they will ever surrender, at least not as long as the more hardline elements of the Taleban are in place. With troops deserting every day, and never having been the brightest star in the popular eye, the Taleban are prepared to try anything before their grasp on power slips. It’s too bad that until then the horror of war will continue to claim the lives of civilians who have already suffered so much.
I think the “dead or alive” issue was mainly for the benefit of the American public and the international image of the US. It’s pretty clear that Bin Laden is a primary target, and if you take the drastic measure of bombing another country, chances are that you are trying to obtain your target any which way possible, i.e. dead or alive.
This offer’s a propaganda move, an absurdly transparent one, for reasons already outlined by others above.
Good to see Bush rejecting it out of hand, while walking his freaking dog across the lawn. That’s about as much attention and consideration it deserves.
The Taliban have demonstrated that they will not negotiate in good faith, and we mustn’t waste a second hoping that they will eventually “come to their senses” and approach this issue in a way that’s fair and makes sense to those of us in the West.
Actually, the reason we rejected it was that, in addition the evidence problem that everyone has been talking about, is that they said they would only hand him over to a country that would be free from American pressure. I have a feeling that the only nations that might satisfy this would be Iran/Iraq. Not exactly the people I would expect to give a fair trial, nor is it what we really wanted when we said hand him over.
I’m cynical enough to say that the “we want to see the evidence” is just an excuse for the Taliban to tell Osama bin Laden where the leaks are in his organization.
Also, we want Al-Quaeda completely dismantled and rendered impotent, and anyone else involved in the terrorist attacks brought to justice, and the Taliban to stop harboring terrorists. Osama bin Laden is not our sole objective.
Also, hasn’t the Taliban been claiming that they don’t know where Osama bin Laden is, even though they know he’s still alive? Every word out of their mouths is a lie, and we should not accept any compromises with them.
I think rjung is right. Handing over detailed evidence at this stage would compromise intelligence sources.
The US may be willing to compromise some of these sources once they’ve actually got OBL and his compadres sitting in a NY prison cell and it all comes to court, but not before.
Exactly. And also, what of the Taliban officials who harbored him and his training camps? Should we just let them off with a warning?
Let’s not forget that the U.S. does not recognize the Taliban as the legitmate government of Afghanistan. As far as we’re concerned, they’re a bunch of thugs with guns, who just happen to be (for now) the most powerful group in a basically ungoverned land. We don’t negotiate with thugs.
That might be a problem. If ObL is either captured by, or surrenders to an E.U. country, you might not get him extradited to face a U.S. court.
This scenario was outlined in the following article: Powers at odds on executions
Quote: Belgian Justice Minister Marc Verwilghen (Belgium currently hold the EU chair) has urged Washington to devise “some arrangement” under which extradited suspects would not face the death penalty if convicted.
This entire discussion becomes academic now that US commando forces are on the ground. Read this breaking story at http://www.klorg.com
…of this. President Clinton rejected a Sudanese proposal to extradite Bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996.