> Assume that, in the fall of 2001, forces from UNOTKIDN (UN Office for
> Terrorist Kinesis, Informatics, and Dire Noetics -- headed by three
> generals, a Brazilian, an Iranian, and an Indian) demands the extradition
> of Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan and that the Taliban replies (as they
> did) that they want evidence of of ObL's involvement, and that he be tried
> before Muslim judges. UNOTKIDN provides the evidence, establishes the
>court, and ObL and his lieutenants in Afghanistan are delivered up for trial
What would constitute the valid proof in a situation involving _covert and deniable_ acts of terror? What kind of proof would have been acceptable to Taliban? Based on Islamic jurisprudence, perhaps?
Ulhas
> convicted, and imprisoned (UNOTKIDN troops' aiding in the arrest,
> if necessary).