reply to post by deadmessiah
So there you have it, he was merely offered to be given to us with evidence, at least that is all the article says.
Why do you keep insisting that Osama was "offered to be given to us"? Regarding the Taliban offers, that IS A FALSE STATEMENT!
The first article you linked to says "they would hand him over". It does not say to whom they would hand him over.
EVERY time the Taliban offered to "turn bin Laden over", there were ALWAYS stipulations regarding whom they would turn him over to, AND IT WAS
ALWAYS TO A THIRD PARTY OF THEIR CHOOSING.
Here are some of the articles I found:
"Our position is that if America has evidence and proof, they should produce it. We are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in the light of
the evidence," Zaeef said.
The Taliban has stated that any trial process would have to be instigated by the Afghan Supreme Court, with senior Muslim clerics from three members
of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference participating as observers.
Mr Kabir said: "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate." Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third
country for trial, he said. "We could discuss which third country."
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in
return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over,"
Here is my challenge to you:
Show me a VALID source that indicates that the Taliban would "hand" bin Ladin DIRECTLY over to the United States, even if we did produce evidence of
his guilt. Good luck!
However, after bombing them for about a month
Exageration does nothing to validate a quote. It only diminishes one's credibility. The date of the following article is Oct. 15, 2001:
After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be
rejected by President Bush.
they offer to turn him over to a neutral tribunal for trial
No... they offered to turn him over to "Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law".
That is what we call an international court.
Perhaps you and the "truther" movement do. I certainly don't! "Islamic Sharia law" is a contradiction of both "neutral" and
It is a court that tries an individual that has charges against him from a foreign nation.
That looks like a reference to the "International Criminal Court":
The International Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime
of aggression (although it cannot currently and will in no way before 2017 be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).
It came into being on 1 July 2002—the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force—and it
can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.
It seems Osama's crimes wouldn't have been covered.
As far as due process is concerned, does Guantanamo Bay ring a bell? Detainees are not given due process. This is where detainees from the war
in the middle east are held. It is outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, therefore, due process is not a right given to them under our constitution.
Of course not! The US Constitution only guaranties "due process" to citizens of the United States.
1) Why do you feel "detainees" should be entitled to such a right?
2) Do you feel that the Taliban would reciprocate by using our "due process" laws?
3) "Gitmo" detention camp didn't open until 2002! How would that apply to Osama bin Laden at the time of the Taliban "offers" of 2001?