Blair's evidence against Bin Laden

[Ken Hanly]

Actually I agree that the evidence is sufficient to justify some type of
limited commando action, freezing assets, etc.  to destroy bin Laden and his
associated terrorist networks in spite of the risk
bin Laden and Quaida are clearly out to kill Americans and consider
themselves at war with American and its allies, and that is surely
sufficient for counter-measures.
I am not certain that even this limited action will be possible without
provoking more terrorist attacks and disruption in some countries but any
wider aim such as trying to overthrow the Taliban is even more likely to
plunge countries such as Pakistan into civil war and destabilise other
regimes.

    This does not invalidate Justin's point. If  bin Laden is "brought to
justice" he will no doubt be found guilty but whatever court tries him may
also be guilty of giving in to strong political pressures. Am I wrong in
thinking that even in the Lockerbie trial many lawyers were not at all
impressed by the evidence?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Blair's evidence against Bin Laden


> At 04:41 AM 10/5/01 +0000, justin wrote:
> >
> >No honest magistrate would issue a warrant on Blair's publically
presented
> >evidence. I don't say OBL didn't plan the attacks of 9/11, but on what
Blair
> >said, we haven't probable cause to think that he did. --jks
> >
>
>
> Justin, this logic implies that a military commander should seek prior
> judicial review and approval before, say, shelling an enemy position that
> in his/her judgment may threaten his/her troops. It does not make sense in
> the time of war - which btw was authorized by congress.
>
>
> wojtek
>
>
>
>