Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
The crimes were committed on US soil. US law applies. The fact that Bin Laden conspired to carry out this plot on the US from outside of it does not save him under international law.
The US would be entitled to go in and get him, by ordinary rules of law. Enforcing the sentence, if he was tried by court in his absence, which in our law he could be, could mean such things as possible assassination if that was the only way to enforce the death penalty, for instance.
In any case, my whole point is simply that there is no need for us to go off half cocked screaming insanely and reckessly shooting up Afghanistan.
Patience might give us much better results in the end.
|
Right, except that the middle eastern terrorists go on uninterrupted, the Real IRA continue on. Declaring War on the most disgusting cowarly ideology of modern times is a bold and proper step, and something the international community should have had the gall to do when it first appeared.
Regarding the "crimes on US soil" was not Nagasaki Japanese soil? Were they not Japanese women and children murdered? Convenient double standards Diogenes. The winner gets to do the labeling I suppose.
The soveriegn government of a foreign nation will not give up the said "criminal". It is against Islamic law to hand over a Muslim to non-Muslims, and we are talking about the most extremist interpreters or Islamic law!
What are you going to do? Let it happen again? Wait for chemical weapons to be used? A Nuke?
I am a pacifist. I don't sanction excessive violence. I have sung songs calling for peace and prayed fervently for it. But your twisting of terms infuriates me. A strong stand is not necessarily a violent one. I saw expressions of resolve, not expressions of destruction in Bushes speech to Congress.
But for Pete's sake let's call it what it is.
------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....
A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!
[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-23-2001).]