The lack of evidence against Bin Laden

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 06:12 PM 9/14/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>But my real point is that this conviction that there must be a state
>>behind these guys, and that there must be a lot of money, and that there
>>must be a single command center, seems unjustified.
>
>Yes. Michael Howard (not the dreadful and reactionary British 
>politician, but the distinguished military historian) wrote this in 
>today's London Times:
>
>"Another [statement frequently made that scarcely bears critical 
>examination] is that the attacks required resources that could only 
>have been provided with the support of "rogue states", although it is 
>not evident that they needed anything more than good organisation, 
>access to open information about airline schedules, a dozen people 
>prepared to die for their cause, and a phenomenal amount of luck."
>

Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but I said that on this list just
an hour or so after the two towers went down, as evidenced by the following
reply to Max: 

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:55:30 -0400
From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
Subject: RE: Hi-jack fall-out
Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
X-Sender: sokol at jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Reply-to: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)

At 11:44 AM 9/11/01 -0400, Max wrote:
>The likelihood is bombing missions against
>Afghanistan & Libya, maybe Iran.  Tonight.
>Clinton nat'l security people are quoted as
>saying *only* Osama Bin Laden could have
>done this because of the logistical burden.

I do not think so - the logistics require a very small number of people
involved, essentially only those who flew the hijacked planes and a
coordinator.  In fact, the fewer people the better for the sake of keeping
the operation secret.  It would not surprise me if it was the work of a
group operating mainly in the US, just as in case of the first attack on
the WTC.  In that situation, indiscriminate bombing of other countries
would be arguably the most stupid thing to do - showing in fact how
clueless and desperate Uncle Sam really is.
---end of quote----

Of course, I appreciate Michael P. explantions.  You are right on target.
Amazing where empricial observation, even if limited but free of
ideological blinders, can lead. 

However, if the above analysis is correct and the FBI/CIA brass arrives at
similar conclusions, the consequences can be dire.  Figthing terrorists
abroad is not necessarily such a bad thing.  An attack on Afghanistan can
have the beneficial effect of helping to topple an evil islamist regime
that enslaved the female population of that country and destroyed its
cultural heritage.  In the same vein, the bombing of Dresden and Berlin was
an acceptable price to pay to defeat Hitler.  OTOH, fighting islamist
terrorists already in the US, Canada or Europe could easily lead to the
creation of a secret police state - that would almost certainly outlive its
intended purpose.  And then we can kiss our civil liberties goodbye for good.

wojtek