Hi Seth,
Thanks for your thoughts. I've got some comments.
>There are problems with DM's call for the arrest of those responsible. He
>talks about the need for an "international tribunal." Why? The crime was
>committed in the United States. The US is legally entitled to try the
>suspects in its own courts. We already did that in the 1993 WTC case,
after
>all. The World Court in the Hague can try only states, not individuals. As
>for creating a special UN tribunal, why do that when there's already a
>national justice system here at home?
I hadn't really considered this, and it's a good point. However, the political climate is such that it is unlikely anyone could get a fair trial in the US at the moment, which would argue for a more neutral location.
>Also, DM seems to dodge the central problem of a trial - the suspects are
in
>a country whose government refuses to hand them over. The Taliban have
been
>contradicting themselves on what exactly they are willing to do with Bin
>Laden and his associates. But they have never said they would extradite
him
>to the US.
But they did say they would extradite him to a "neutral" country, didn't they? I thought early on there were reports that the Taliban would extradite him if enough evidence was presented (and I agree strongly with McReynolds on this point - the evidence should be made publicly available). In any case, the US turned them down, saying there would be no negotiations, an indefensible position. I would like to see such avenues pursued before military action is taken, even UN authorized military action.
>Is it possible to say that the U.S. is right to seek to eliminate the
>Taliban while still criticizing things the U.S. is doing? Hundreds of
>thousands of people are on the verge of starvation and meanwhile the U.S.
>has closed the borders to UN food convoys while cynically carrying out
>meaningless and possibly dangerous food drops.
>
>So far the bombing has been hitting mostly military targets, but if the
U.S.
>keeps going with no results to show, we are likely to see some vindictive
>and reckless attacks on civilians. In the end, if the U.S. wants to
replace
>the government of Aghanistan, it has to risk its own soldiers. If it's
>unwilling to do that, it has no right to risk the lives of the Afghan
>population. But as for the goal of toppling the Taliban, can we really be
>against it?
Yes, I think we can be against it. It isn't like we get to determine US policy. The US seems interested in getting rid of the Taliban, an awful regime I agree, but wants to replace it with the Northern Alliance. Hardly a group that wants to empower the people, and whose various generals may start another civil war once the Taliban is removed. It is conceivable that the situation for the Afghan population will deteriorate once the Taliban is removed. And of course the current US action is causing tremendous suffering already inside the country, a direct consequence of US policy which includes getting rid of the Taliban.
And finally, getting rid of the Taliban may cause further resentment among Arab Muslims, increasing our vulnerability to similar attacks in the future.
I think the best advice I've seen on this issue came from a guest on CNN Europe (we were in Italy the week before and after the attack) who was touted as a specialist on the Persian Gulf area. He said the best way to combat terrorism is to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab Muslim world. How do you do this? Stop backing Israel and work towards a genuine 2-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which would try to ensure the security of both sides. End the murderous sanctions against Iraq. Discontinue support for the corrupt oligarchs of the region, and pressure them to make democratic reforms. Not that I expect the US to do any of this, but we're talking about what a productive non-violent response might look like.
Brett