How would people feel (especially Americans - but everyone) if the US says to the Taliban "You have 48 hours to turn over Bin Laden or we start bombing". And the Taliban says "ok, we didn't know what he was doing but we are shocked. Here he is along with his commanders - put them on trial".

Appealing as it might sound to torture him on live TV, the US would have to put him on trial. The laws of the US and the Geneva Convention demand that.

How would America deal with the prospect of a inevitably long and complicated legal action, and the moral dilemma (if there is one) of visible military retribution.

Not that I think it's a particularly likely scenario - I'm pretty much at a loss about what is likely to be honest.

[ September 15, 2001 at 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan ]

This is NOT a police action or a legal action. Treating it as such would be an open invitation for MORE attacks, and the rest of the world would laugh at how weak we've become.

It's too late for diplomacy or law. Our enemies have no concept of those things. The families and friends would be well within their moral rights to hunt down any/all politicians and lawyers who would try such a thing and put them on a trial of their own.

This is WAR; not a trial. We caught Al Capone, the undisputed #1 Mafia kingpin of his day. 60-odd years later, the Mafia is stronger and wealthier than ever.

Putting one of their leaders or all of them) on trial or in jail during the trial would simply inspire their subordinates to do something to break them out or force their release.

I think even involving NATO is a mistake at this point. All this 'globaloney' replaces common sense with wishy-washy WUSSY bullshit.

The terrorist actions require large-scale death and destruction, lest the US become an easy target forever. When a bully takes a poke at you at the playground, and you run home to mommy, you are FOREVER doomed.

This calls for blood. Lots of it. Humane or not. You don't win a war without it. We lost in Vietnam because of the failure to use proper force. If our 'allies' don't like how do our business, fuck them.

A trial would be a pitiful joke, and a TERRIBLE misjustice to the victims, their families, Americans everywhere, and the western world as a whole.

This isn't about one or two men, or even one or two countries. Just remember Al Capone.

At this point Jonathan even if the Taliban turn Bin over to the the States, it wouldn't matter.
The Taliban is just as guilty for hiding Bin as long as they have.
Further, one life isn't anywhere near enough retribution for the 1000s lost. If this were the case, any yahoo could bomb the fuck out of anything and turn the "leader" in, and walk away relitively easily.
Like Abe said, there needs to be a demonstration to the world that the US will not tolerate any kind of BS like this, and unfortunatly it's going to have to cost many lives.

Isn't war fun smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ September 15, 2001 at 11:50 AM: Message edited by: homeunit ]

i don't think it matters whether they turn him over or not. we and our allies have already decided it's time to declare war on terrorism. i see bin laden as just the match that was struck to start the fire.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/

I got the number of days wrong.

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

US laws don't apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeL:
The Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

US laws don't apply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe. But if Bin Laden is turned over and the US bomb Afghanistan anyway a lot of international support is going to disappear. Even the nazis got trials.

Not that I think Bin Laden will get turned over - he's a war hero to those people.

[ September 16, 2001 at 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan ]

If they just handed him over, remenants of his organization would still exist.

The Nazis got trials in order to try and show they government and its actions were illegal, and that the results of the war weren't just victor's vengence.

I don't think there's any question that the actions of the past week are illegal, or that retribution from the US will be vengence for them.

I doubt who ever is fingered will have the luxury of a trial, for better or worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeL:
If they just handed him over, remenants of his organization would still exist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. I certainly don't think that would be the end of the story - "remnants" of his organization are reportedly spread across 35-40 countries.

I think the US response will involve an immediate high profile action and a long term much lower profile action. I'm really referring to the immediate "retribution" as it seems to be called.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonathan:
I think the US response will involve an immediate high profile action and a long term much lower profile action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I'm not sure there's a way for anyone to avert it, though. This is going to create some interesting blends of police and miltary work. How it'll look in the legal spotlight is anyone's guess.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeL:


I agree. I'm not sure there's a way for anyone to avert it, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the inevitability that worries me. The attack was mostly symbolic, it wasn't going to even scratch the capability of the US military despite the attack on the pentagon.

We had a pretty good idea by Tuesday evening what the response would most likely be. Of course there are military options, but some kind of immediate action is really the only option.

You're a miltary guy - surely being put in a position where the enemy is almost dictating your action is not good, even if you have vastly superior forces and firepower. Especially when the enemy has had a lot longer to prepare than you have.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonathan:
You're a miltary guy - surely being put in a position where the enemy is almost dictating your action is not good, even if you have vastly superior forces and firepower. Especially when the enemy has had a lot longer to prepare than you have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reacting is never a way to win, but I don't think our reaction will be what was anticipated. We've always responded with airstrikes (Libya) or missles (the embassy bombings) and have never been willing to sustain a long campaign.

Whatever the response is, I don't think it'll be just one action. Hopefully the world (not just the US) will support an all out war on terrorism.

How else can we respond? To show weakness would leave us vulnerable in the future. To use too much force might encourage hatered of the US. Where's the balance?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeL:


How else can we respond? To show weakness would leave us vulnerable in the future. To use too much force might encourage hatered of the US. Where's the balance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question - I certainly don't have the answer. I hope Bush and his administration do, I'm certainly glad they haven't shot first and asked questions later.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeL:



Whatever the response is, I don't think it'll be just one action. Hopefully the world (not just the US) will support an all out war on terrorism.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think considering that 40 nations have been touched by this (I saw this on tv, not sure of the exact context , though) we'll have a good amount of support...or am I being naive again smilies/redface.gif smilies/confused.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ANGEL4U:


I think considering that 40 nations have been touched by this (I saw this on tv, not sure of the exact context , though) we'll have a good amount of support...or am I being naive again smilies/redface.gif smilies/confused.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard the figure of 40 nations too. Of course there is support - the vast majority of those nations have experienced terrorist actions on home soil too. Not sure about Canada?

But support from Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran is likely to fade away if you start dropping nukes on Kabul which is essentially in their back yard.

Pakistan is walking a very fine line as it is. It's a military dictatorship with a large population of muslim fundamentalists as well as factions in its army who support and arm the Taliban.

The US making 'deals' with countries like Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and China is the same notion that got Colin Powell's plan for the Gulf War literally LAUGHED out of the room in 1990.

The sudden incidents of other countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, China, Pakistan, etc) finding and holding 'suspects' is, to me, suspect in and of themselves. It looks to me like a quick show of 'we're on your side', but I question their allegiance.

These have been coupled with several threats pertaining to any attacks on Taliban targets, as those will result in retaliation on the Taliban's part. And parking our boys and equipment on Pakistan's soil is not my idea of a safe home base from which to launch any attacks.

Russia has offered to assist us with intelligence but will NOT grant us use of their soil. That, to me, is a half-hearted 'alliance', and I don't think we should give much credit to their reports. A country is either WITH us or NOT with us; this middle ground is a great potential source of danger. We were allied with Russia in WWII, but how long after that did they become our most feared enemies?

I simply don't trust them, and I can't see why the US gov't would. I have seen lists of countries who have been shown to provide $$ and/or arms and/or facilities to terrorist groups, many of whom are now claiming to be on our side. Look at it from a purely economics perspective; aligning themselves with terrorists means financial gain, while aligning themselves with us exposes them as targets. Acting in their own self-interests, who wins out? Not us, that's for sure.

When the US government says that we as a nation need to be prepared to see this thing through to the end, they aren't just talking about the capture / death of bin Laden. Declaring a war on terrorism is an act that will stretch farther than the Afghan borders... this thing is so much bigger than that. bin Laden is one man.
"Cut off the beasts head, and it will grow another..."
We need to be prepared for this thing to hit home again. The WTC and Pentagon hits weren't the only attacks we will see on US soil. There are affiliates of bin Laden and other similar groups that are already in the country.

The war on terrorism is a war we may never see the end of... how do you know that EVERYONE involved has been brought to justice or been killed by Nato strikes? You simply cannot. There could always be one more man waiting to hijack that one plane.....

The capture / death of Osama bin Laden means nothing anymore.

You have to go to war guys! These factions do not negotiate. They do not reason. They just "Do." Japan seemed to understand where we were coming from during WW II and Libya have been awfully quiet since we lit up their skies. These guys need a lot of fire under their ass. If Afghanistan is harboring these guys, than may we make Afghanistan the next Atlantis. If Sudan, Syria, Algiers, and Lebanon have a problem, we have a little something for them to chew on. Plenty to go around! smilies/biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonathan:



But support from Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran is likely to fade away if you start dropping nukes on Kabul which is essentially in their back yard.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe....I suppose you're right smilies/tongue.gif