I want bin Laden, but this kind of bothers me

[Wombat]

This article puzzles me:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/30/gen.america.under.attack/index.html

Let me preface this: Yes, I think they should hand him over. Yes, I think Afghanistan is knowingly harboring a fugitive. Yes, I think the use of force is a viable option.

But..

The White House on Sunday said it will not negotiate with the Taliban <I>or provide evidence of bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks. </I>

Okay, why? If we want him badly enough for a crime, and we have evidence, then why not offer the evidence, even if we insist on having him anyway? If some other country asked the US to extradite a person without enough proof to justify an arrest warrant, what do you think our answer would be?

Edit: s/search/arrest/

[Gurm]

Because they haven't offered that evidence to ANYONE yet. Because some of it is probably necessary to engage in successful continued military action.

And because the Taliban, in refusing to hand him over, has pretty much admitted his and their own guilt.

- Gurm

[Wombat]

Now, there's a lovely attitude.

"We can't show you our evidence, but he's guilty." That's the kind of shit that should never be allowed in the US. It's the same tactic the Chinese use for "crimes against the state."

We can't we at least say that we want him for the embassy bombings, which he has admitted to? That's plenty of justification for me. Why not play that card?

[Joel]

They already have but the Taliban still refused saying that "he is our guest". They know what they have in their hands there should be no questions.

Joel

[Rags]

Originally posted by Wombat


We can't we at least say that we want him for the embassy bombings, which he has admitted to? That's plenty of justification for me. Why not play that card?

We don't need to. They know exactly what he did and how he did it. Oh, it must be a news flash to them that O'Ass is a terroist

The only country that recognizes the Taliban is Pakistan, why should we?

Rags

[Wombat]

> The only country that recognizes the Taliban is Pakistan, why should we?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's something about them controlling 95% of the country.

We didn't recognize mainland China for a little while either, and that got us nowhere.

[Rags]

Originally posted by Wombat
> The only country that recognizes the Taliban is Pakistan, why should we?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's something about them controlling 95% of the country.

We didn't recognize mainland China for a little while either, and that got us nowhere.

My point is that we and the UN have a blanet policy of not negotiating with terroists, and even if these terrorists "control" this "country", then we don't negotiate. We asked them to hand him over, that should be enough. They know who he is and what he does, they are just playing games.

Rags

[Bohrn]

maybe the evidence that they have(assuming that they do have concrete evidence)was obtained in such a way that going public with it would expose certain resources that they wish to remain hush-hush about for now. Just a guess. But I wouldnt want to put all my cards on the table just now if I was the director of this program.

[Helevitia]

Bottom line is...even if we dont have over "evidence" of his involvement in the crimes that he supposedly commited, who will you side with? Now think carefully before answering this.

OK, your 5 minutes are up. "If you are not with us, you are with them".

-George W. Bush


Need I say more? I am on the American side. Can anyone tell me that they do not think theat O suck my di... didn't do it?

Dave

[Gurm]

Bohrn has it.

If we aren't giving out the "evidence", it's because either we don't have it (I don't believe that) or it would compromise our military or strategic operations.

- Gurm

[Wombat]

"If you are not with us, you are with them"

That "argument" gets my attention. Why? Because it's bullshit. It tries to make a black-white differentiaton when there isn't one. When it becomes accepted policy, expect it to be followed closely by, "If you're innocent, then you have nothing to worry about," as police surveillance and searches become part of our daily lives.

You can have your police state if you want it, but if that's what happens, I'm leaving.

[Helevitia]

You don't think there is a black and white difference between terrorists and everyone else? It is black and white. We can't sit here forever and lets people shit all over us while nothing happens. Also, people will only be policed as much as they want to be policed. That's what laws are made for and elections are run for and people to vote for.

Dave

[spoogenet]

On the other hand, we don't recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, therefore we have no diplomatic ties/relations with them, thus they have no basis for negotiation with us on a matter that they have no officially recognized authority in.

Well, not really, but it's another argument to toss into the fire. Burn baby, burn.

b

[Dr Mordrid]

Speaking as someone with friends and relatives who are forward deployed and ready to take direct part in whatever military action is taken......

The information will be given to heads of state in order to let them make informed judgements as to their involvement in any coalitions the US sets up to pursue terrorism. What do you think that parade through the White House the last couple of weeks is all about?

As for making this information public or giving it to the Taliban in any other form, that's out of the question.

In order to provide that information in proper context one would have to reveal how it was obtained. If you do that you are likely going to close off those sources for future use since they will either kill live sources or move anything we are monitoring in ways to shield against our observations.

Losing those sources could very well endanger those troops and units who may depend on that information.

Besides, you would be telling them something they already know. The Taliban is part and parcel of Bin Ladens group. In fact he was recently made the commander of the Afghan military. This was reported by the Russian RIA Novosti news agency, Iran's official Voice of the Islamic Republic radio and the UPI on August 30.

He is also married to the daughter of the Taliban's leader.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

I just wonder why the White House announced they were going to publicly present "conclusive proof" of his connection, and then balked.