Brad,
>I'm sorry, but this strikes me as totally bizarre. The Taliban did
>not need to be convinced by evidence that Al-Qaeda was a terrorist
>organization that had carried out 9/11. They already knew deep within
>their bones that Al-Qaeda was a terrorist organization that had
>carried out 9/11.
>
>Even more bizarre is the reference to "due process." How was one
>supposed to get the Taliban to respond to discovery requests? To
>submit to subpoenas?
I don't think Justin is arguing we should have sent bin Laden a subpoena. Rather, he's arguing for a response which targets the guilty instead of one which targets an area where the guilty party lives, but which also targets plenty of innocents. How is justice served by killing 1,000 Afghan civilians? How is justice served by putting thousands more at risk of starvation? It seems awfully pompous for someone to say that collateral damage on this scale is either justified or worth it, especially when the death, pain and suffering inflicted on innocents is on the same scale or worse than the initial crime you are trying to punish.
He also alluded to the fact that the US did not pursue all potential non-violent solutions to conclusion before resorting to force. Who's to say whether or not the Taliban would have turned over Osama? Even if the Taliban knew a lot about al-Qaeda and approved of, or didn't care much about, their activities, the Pakistanis had a lot of influence with the Taliban. But now we'll never know.
Brett