What evidence is there that would be sufficient in an ordinary crime to swear out a warrant for his arrest. The only evidence I've seen cited is that he dislikes the U.S., but he has denied it, and it seems like that denial should be sufficient to bar his extradition until there is a lot more substance.
mbs: You could leave it blank where I said OBL and my point, such as it was, still follows.
I'm beginning to doubt that any organization (or person) with a _name_ was behind the attack. Formal terrorist organizations announce their actions. This seems more like an action brought about by a loose informal grouping (something like the Black Blocs, etc.) Over on the marxism list Lou, I, others are arguing against a conspiracy theory that the WH & the CIA did it; but the evidence against bin Laden is just as shaky. Carrol
mbs: I thought Iraq was involved but I am doubtful now, knowing that the U.S. is just itching for an excuse to obliterate him, and in light of my suspicion that he is not ready to go to heaven yet, unlike the hijackers.
Of course I have no evidence on OBL or anyone else. But there had to be some sort of organization involved, if not a state, and the likelihood of it being something nobody had ever heard of, or even less likely, no organization at all, seems remote.
Incidentally, in probability theory, an event with probability X is no more likely after one trillion trials than after the first one, assuming what happens in a trial does not depend on what has happened in previous ones. Put another way, if the chance of rolling a five is one in six, after a million rolls, it is still one in six, even if your first million rolls came up six.