Just to correct something a couple of people have mentioned, bin Laden is not protected by the Geneva Convention since he not a member of the military of a sovereign nation. For the same reason, our CIA operatives are not covered by the Geneva Conventions either since they are not part of the military. Therefore, if bin Laden is captured, he would not be a POW.
I hope cooler heads will prevail. Killing anybody in coold blood and without a judicial process is a crime and if America would resort to that kind of thing, which I am very sure it will not, it would sink very low indeed and it would be a shame on a country that is and should be very much above that. Everybody is entitled to their day in court. Tim McVeigh had his day and any criminal, no matter how bad, is entitled to his day in court.
There hasn’t been anything said by Sailor to which I disagree.
In terms of who actually gets to try him, I missed a big point in my initial post.
It really depends where he is captured (if indeed he is not killed) and by whom.
I have noticed in today’s paper that forces from the UK have been put on hold by the American military and not permitted to enter Afghanistan, as well as peacekeepers from places like France, Italy and Syria.
Imagine if bin Laden surrendered to France. There is no way I can see that France would allow bin Laden to be extradited to the US, if only for nationalistic reasons. He would be tried in France.
What if bin Laden surrendered to the Italians, or somehow made his way to Italy and was captured? Again, an extradition is very unlikely, because European ocuntries refuse to allow criminals facing the death penalty in the US to be deported to the US. Italy may well hand him over to the ICJ. (The ICJ would be rubbing its hands in delight at the thought of the US Government coming cap in hand to the court which it has spurned, seeking an extradition order.)
But the US is keeping a tight seal on Afghanistan, and not allowing foreign troops on the ground, so this is all a moot point.
Dave, I must have missed something. Do you have a link showing where peacekeepers from Syria :eek: have been seriously proposed?
I think you are reading into things a bit, Sailor. I said nothing about capturing bin Laden and then offing him. I’m pretty well-versed in the Geneva Convetion, and I would never advocating killing a prisoner without a trial. My point was that there is no reason we can’t bomb a building he is in or kill him if he participates in a gun battle. Essentially, his death wouldn’t be a gross violation of justice and rule of law as Dave Stewart feels. On the same note, I really don’t have a problem with catching him and trying him. I just don’t think it’s real likely we’ll get him alive.
I don’t think that Bin Laden could be put on trial by any international court, since AFAIK, none would be competent. The ICJ is only competent for issues involving states, not individuals and the International Criminal Court won’t be competent for acts of terrorism, AFAIK.
On the other hand, courts are competent not only for crimes commited on their territory, but also when the victims are their citizens (always? not sure, but I suppose so) and sometimes for crimes commited by their citizens.
So, I suspect that any country which had citizens killed on the 9/11 could put BL on trial. I actually suspect that these countries would have to, according to their laws, in most cases. I don’t think a country could legally choose to extradite someone if its courts are competent for the crime. If BL popped up in some EU country, I think this country would be pretty much embarrassed, actually. If for some reason he was captured by a non-US force in Afghanistan, I tend to suspect that some unfortunate circumstances would concur to make him end up under US custody.
If he was arrested in a country which had no citizens killed during the attack, there would be no problem. I don’t think that any country apart the US would ask his extradition, and anyway, the country which arrested him could extradite him to whatever country she wants.
Now, there’s the problem of the DP. A country where the DP doesn’t exist couldn’t extradite him to the US. I suspect he would be extradited nevertheless, in exchange for some promise that he wouldn’t be executed. Now, since I don’t think that in the US an international agreement, let alone some formal promise, has more value than an US law, I suppose he would be nevertheless executed, assuming he’s found guilty. The country which extradited him would then issue some kind of formal complaint. However, I don’t think it would work for anyone else than BL, since no other person potentially involved has the same symbolic “value” than BL.
And finally, there’s the issue of extraditing someone to a country where one can be judged by a secret military court. But there are already several threads on this topic.
clairobscur, I am only addressing this and not the rest of your post which I also believe has quite a few holes. At any rate, the way it works is that the USA would agree not to seek the death penalty or to use the special military tribunals or whatever. There is no law which mandates the death penalty must be sought by the prosecution and adhering to that compromise presents absolutely no legal problem. If the USA cannot do something, then they should not promise to do it. Credibility is very important in international relations and breaking promises is a good way to have other countries not trust you. If the USA would promise not to seek the death penalty and would then do it anyway, there would be hell to pay in its relations with other countries. The USA has been known to use the trick of demanding extradition for some minor crime which would not be a DP case and then, once the subject is in custody, charge him with a major crime and seek the DP. This is a bad way to do business because you pull that off a few times and other countries now start to block extraditions wholesale, and rightly so. It takes a long time to build up your credibility and it takes very short time to loose it. Lying and cheating are not good ways to increase the credibility of the US.
It’s a good thing the French surrender so easily. If they had Bin Laden and refused to hand him over, the only thing that would save them from getting bombed back to 1944 would be that they would surrender to the first company of Marines we sent over.
That being said:
Bin Laden will not be captured alive.
If he chooses to draw out this ordeal by surrendering to another country in order to make the process more lengthy and divisive, he will eventually end up in America.
I don’t care what country gets him, you don’t fuck with 300 million pissed off Americans. Bush knows anything he did to get Bin Laden into American custody would get a 90%+ approval rating,(upto and including invading France:)) and if he failed to get him, then he would be a one-termer.
There is no worse place for anyone or country to be, than between America and Bin Laden.
The answer for me is pretty simple, at least from a legal point of view. This is not a crime against humanity (like genocide) for that reason you can’t apply the “universal principle” wich is that any country can judge the perpetrators. You have to apply the “territorial principle” in which the perpetrators have to be tried in the country were the crime was comitted (U.S.A).
As many people pointed the problem would be in case anonther country captures the terrorists. The most important issue would be death penalty. The majority of the countries in the world don’t grant extradition in this case.
Someone argued that “bush will have a 90% support for bringing osama to our justice, even invading france”. I hope that was said as a joke, in any case I don’t think the American people would like the american goverment to violate international law. And, I would like to add, even if that happened you would have a tough time to defeat France 
Rossarian - I’m fairly certain that bin Laden will end up dead rather than captured, too. But he might not be.
I was happy to read this morning that British SAS troops were 2 hours too late to catch bin Laden over the weekend. This surprises me, because I had thought British troops were not yet deployed. This would be quite something - imagaine of the Brits got him before anyone else did!
A British capture would be very interesting. Britain would probably extradite him to the US, but that would be subject to appeals to the European Court, which might well refuse to allow an extradition.
Clairobscur - the ICJ does try individuals. Our good friend Milosevic is currently arraigned before the ICJ.
I’m betting that the only way he will be captured alive is if he surrenders to another country, in a public manner.
However, if the Brits did get him first, I’m betting they would just hand him over on the battlefield to the US. Then fly him to Guam, interogate him, try him, and then execute him nice and quick.
There is no way in the world that we are going to have to deal with extraditing Osama. The Taliban has already been used as an example of what happens to countries and governments that shelter him.
Extradition is a non-issue.
Dave Stewart, I see you’re back. Gotta cite about those Syrian peacekeepers proposed for Afghanistan?
Only the somewhat dubious South China Morning Post, last Friday’s edition. Thinking about it, it does seem extremely unlikely.
It is also possible I have confused “Syria” with “Russia”, too, in my recollection.
I will check the SCMP. Google has nothing.
“Sheltering” and “arraigning for trial in one’s own country” are entirely different issues, I hope you realise.
Having someone undergo a trial in a country other than the US is not “sheltering a terrorist”.
As I remember, the Taliban offered to try him.
For Bin Laden, any country that has possesion of him and isn’t moving towards American troops in an effort to turn him over will be considered the enemy.
You watch, nobody will touch him unless they have already decided to turn him over to us on the battlefield.
Oh what a load of rubbish. Do you really think that US law prevails over any other law? Are you an advocate of an American empire? I find the assertion that if another country tries bin Laden and does not hand him over to the US would be considered an enemy state to be offensive and ridiculous.
Fine.
I find the thought that any country could even think of asserting a superior cliam against him to be offensive.
The guy has bombed our embassies, attacked the Cole and killed 4000+ people on American soil. The effects of his actions have been to make every single American feel less secure and have less constitutional protections.
The guy is waging a war againt the US. If you are not the US, or are not willing to support the US 100% in this, then that country needs to back the fuck up.
It’s pretty simple. If a country doesn’t like it, then they should make sure they don’t get in the way.
I think you’re forgetting that other citizens of other countries were killed in the WTC attack, too. Plenty of other countries have valid claims against bin Laden.
This is not a perfect analogy but the gist of it is hopefully clear: If I commit a murder in China, and then an assault and battery in France and I am arrested in France, then the French judicial system is entirely at liberty to put me in gaol for assault, and not extradite me to China to face a murder charge.
That’s not “offensive” logic: its a fact of international law. What makes you think that your country has pre-eminence in international law? Bush’s speech that “you’re either with us or against us”?
If France or China (or Saudi Arabia, which is more realistic) or any other country gets hold of bin Laden, and decides not to send him to the US for trial, then the Westphalian principle which says that each of those countries respects the sovereign right of the others legally means there would not be a damn thing the US could do about it.
Of course, the law is not the end of it. The US could:
-
exert diplomatic pressure; and
-
exert military pressure (I could reluctantly see US special forces raiding a Saudi prison, but not a Chinese or French prison).
And practically speaking, I would think that even China would probably hand over bin Laden as a gesture of goodwill. But only as that.
However…
If you kill a Frenchman in China, then you face the Chinese judicial system, not the French system.
Westphalian principles aside…
We’ve got 4000+ dead, 270,000,000 live people and the most kick ass military and economy the world has ever seen that says any counry that touches Bin Laden will turn him over ASAP or face the consequences.
America is the big boy on the block, and right about now I don’t think your westphalian principles are worth the paper they are printed on when it comes to Bin Laden.
We are not talking about hunting whales, drilling in the ocean or abortion rights here. With regards to Bin Laden, there is a clear threat to the very welfare of America and probably the biggest mandate the American public has given a US president in the last 50 years.
If the American public is willing to tolerate military tribunals, tapping attorney/client phone calls and checkpoints to search for bombs at tunnels and bridges, then you can imagine how much weight your 400 year old westphalian principles will have with the average American.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Freedom *
**
It is this sort of enlightened thinking that makes me proud to be a non-american.
I live in the US. most of the time, and it has given me a great deal. This country has many beautiful people, and a whole lot of great things to be proud of, Inculding the former WTC and the remarkable men and women who gave everything and more at the Pentagon, in Penn., and at Ground zero. But their are also a lot of things wrong with this country, and that is what other countries notice. Many foriegnors i have met look at the US with a feeling of apprehension and distrust, the fat, stupid, uncultured american lurking in their vision.
The point is that, amazing as it seems, The US, while the richest and most powerful country in the world, is NOT anymore important in international law than any other country, unless i am tottaly mistaken, and it should have to abide by the same laws as any country from Russia to Afghanistan to Swaziland. Your use of the ‘big boy on the block’ analogy, Freedom, is very interesting, as the last time i checked, that was another way to describe a bully.
As has been mentioned before, ETA terrorists in Spain (a clear threat to the very welfare of Spain) have been given refuge in the USA, and untl maybe 5 years ago(I think the first ETA ever deported was in '96. ?) we did not give a damn about the fact that they were terrorists, because they hadn’t done anything to “us.”
Please don’t take my outburst the wrong way, I have so much respect for the people of this country right now, but in my view, we were not the only ones hurt, and just because we are the “big boy on the block” we do not have the right “to tell every country what to do, and to hell with them if they don’t like it”. Any country which lost but 1 citizen in those attacks was hurt, and if they want to try bin laden, then if they capture him, they can try bin laden.