Let's not turn it around. That's a little fallacy we call shifting the burden, and in this case the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" also comes to mind. Do you really think a lack of evidence can justify war? Let's invade Canada, then, because we haven't proven that they weren't involved. Right.

Oh, of course let's not do that. That would require extra work, and we're all too busy ignoring all the evidence offered to have to come up with any justification. In fact, let's let all national security concerns go through our court system before taking any action. Yes, yes, I'm sure that's the best path. They'll gladly comply with court ordering to turn over documents and other material, because they're all basically such good, nice people. In fact, we should handle this whole matter in the court system!!! We can just sue for damages, and, when they attack again, Ah Ha! just sue them for more. In fact, they more damage they cause, the MORE we can sue them for!!! Yes, yes, we've been going about this whole thing all wrong. Thank you so much for illuminating me!!

I'm shocked at you Hobbes! Have you not learned anything from conversations here? You KNOW that the United States must try ANYTHING having to do with its national security through the court of world opinion. The United States court system can ONLY be used as a legitimate institution to fight terrorism when it is the United States being accused of state sponsored terrorism.

My god man....have you no shame? Osama and Saddam, and his band of heroes(otherwise known as the oppressed) have suffered enough. The United States deserves to suffer attacks like 9/11 for all the past injustices we have put on others over the years. The United States can NOT serve its own best interests (as other countries still do) because we are a superpower who must be put in its place. The United States has done much more evil than good in its history and all U. S. Presidents (especially those evil republicans like Reagan and Bush) are nothing more than lackey's for corporate greed.

Yes, I'm sure of it now. Osama Bin Laden had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And I owe it to folks like Wertz and Platypus for setting me straight. From now on, I will refuse to listen to the CIA, FBI, British Intelligence, our elected officials, and anyone else who spins these dastardly lies. As a matter of fact, I think we should launch an investigation into whether 9/11 actually occured?

I mean did those buildings really fall? Nobody has PROVEN they fell. They may still be there! I know I went to ground zero last summer and saw with my own eyes, yet maybe somehow I had my view manipulated! Perhaps, I am a secret agent used to prop up the secret Bush conspiracy and was brainwashed into writing this post! Maybe my sarcastic post is just a continuation of this conspiracy!!!

Or maybe folks just need a reality check.

There is no reason to turn it around and look for evidence that Osama didn't do it because the only places you'd find evidence he didn't do it is on conspriacy theory sites.

You mean, like this one right here?

International intelligence, National intelligence, etc., connected the dots - after the fact of course. The US took action, revenge, sought justice, whatever label you want to place on it. Then what happened? Osama admitted it.



I've submitted information like this before and it was denounced as not being an admission. That's why I walked away from this thread.

People have giving false confessions in the past, as individuals and as groups. Osama and his group might have just been playing the part of cover, the bottom line of it on that last one is no one knows huh? If a murder or a crime is to occur in say where you live, would you feel justice if the local law just grabed who they suspected and either executed or imprisoned that individual or individuals without trying to find if they are innocent of the crime accused?

We are not talking about one isolated incident and Osama and his group are not the only terrorists in the world, also the revenge or safeguarding against another attack is a major process with definite impacts that will occur. Such as u.s fighter jets bombing allied troops or innocents being killed by either side in the process. More to the point such an activity as bombing a nation or starting a war or any such should have very critical judgments and planning put to it accordingly you should suspect.

Why i do personally feel that Osama was tied to 9/11, i can only think with what is giving to me, besides that i am blind on the issue, all the other dynamics are just that.

We have proof, captives, video tape recordings, intelligence and more putting Osama and his group as the mastermind of 9/11, and we went after the individual and still are i would hope, but this then leads me to thinking on why Iraq? to date i don’t think the u.s has captured or turned up evidence linking the two to 9/11 or working together. More to the point, our allies and the u.n are participants in Afghanistan, I guess on a clear case for the most part, so I would imagine they are pretty sure about that one, I guess the same cant be said of iraq.

Nice strawman. Did I ever say we should go through the court system? What's sad about this is that people often make this same jump from "proof" to "court" as though courts are the only places where logic or standards of proof should apply. RUBBISH! Proof is part of a general scientific method, applicable in many areas besides law - including just about any kind of strategic planning or policy-making. I have to prove fifty things a day in my job, often using - gasp! - actual numbers and measurements to make a point. All I've said here is that we should, when considering a matter as serious as war, base our decisions on proof that someone does have WMD or does pose a threat. I'm questioning the method, not the conclusion. In this particular case a process based on careful examination of the facts by skilled and diligent professionals did happen to support a decision to invade Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean any method leading to that same conclusion must also be correct. It is possible to get the right answer by the wrong method, you know, and applying that same method to different data will sooner or later lead to a disastrously wrong answer. Starting with a presumption of guilt/threat and then working backwards to what facts would support it, as this administration has done, is simply wrong.

Why, thank you It has served its purpose, scaring away what seemed to be becoming irrational discussion....so, now onward to your very valid comments:



Agree. In fact, the administration took a lot of flak from the right wing for not acting quickly (impulsively?) enough. I think any observer, looking back at the series of events and announcements after 9-11 could see that there was no rush to judgement, that facts were analyzed, and that conclusions were then drawn (not the opposite). Was this proof ironclad? Probably not. But then, we weren't really in a situation where we could wait around for additional evidence to just pop up, either.



Again, agree. However, I haven't seen any evidence that that is what happened in this particular case, which is what I was trying to get at with my initial post asking for any particular reason why the decision needs to be re-examined, particularly in light of all the evidence pointing out that it did in fact seem to be the correct decision.

What I am trying to avoid is another strawman, which is what the premise of this thread seems to have been. So, in the absence of any evidence that the process was flawed, or that their was a rush to judgement, etc. there seems little to debate here.

I don't think Osama would be stupid enough to admit to being conspriacy to the worst terrorist attack in man's history if it wasn't true that he did it. He should know the consequences of such confession: The wrath of the United States military.

He agreed to the plan to commit the attacks, so now he should be taken out & serve as a message that when you attack America, you write your death certificate

One of the main points regarding evidence or proof here - and which is worthy of debate - is whether, like our invasion of Iraq, our invasion of Afghanistan had any legal grounds.

I think it is probable that the September 11 attack was organized by al-Qaeda or individuals closely associated with them. I am delighted that they have been somewhat scattered and equally delighted that the heinous Taliban is no longer in charge of beleaguered Afghanistan.

However: Before our invasion of Afghanistan, the US demanded that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban did not refuse as the subsequent spin would have it - they asked for evidence of his guilt. This is the right, by international laws to which we otherwise subscribe (adherence to which we demand of the rest of the world), of any ruling any authority on earth when another nation is seeking extradition for any reason.

Had bin Laden been believed to be hiding out in the UK or Mexico or Australia or Taiwan and had they asked for evidence of guilt before hunting down someone rumored to be within their borders and turning them over to another authority outside their jurisdiction, you can bet that the US would have provided it - or at least tried to cobble together some kind of convincing case. With Afghanistan, the Bush administration refused outright to provide even a scrap of proof.

Instead, they said "Sod off - he's guilty because we say he's guilty. Turn him over or else." They opted for again requesting proof. We opted for "or else". This is not the way the US should conduct business.

If we had proof of his guilt (and Tony Blair claims we did), the Taliban had every right to see it before turning over anyone. Why did we refuse? Did we not have evidence? Why has none been forthcoming since? Do we still not have it? Was our invasion of another state based purely on likely speculation and presumption? If so, this is a very, very, very, very dangerous precedent for this country to set - and not a very good example for the rest of the world who may not believe we are quite as infallible as we do.

As it turns out, our invasion of Afghanistan did not even accomplish its goal. Unless, of course, our goal was simply to destroy anyone on the planet who doesn't jump when the Bush administration says "Jump" - in which case, some of you should feel very proud. The leadership of our country is resorting to terrorist tactics - and you're singing their praises for it.

Although I appreciate what you're saying, consider that the proof they requested might require knowledge which would compromise the security of the source. Giving an unstable violent fundamental religious authority information acquired from an imbedded source would not only endanger that individual but undermine our ability to obtain such sources in the future.

Mrs.p


That argument is one i do not like, for the simple reason it could always be played, and in many scenarios. I doubt we would allow for such an argument to be used against us, or are allies if any still exist. Every nation needs to be made accountable for accusations, in particular ones that lead to war or any form of combat. Trust is not an easy thing, and its trust in regards to the international forum.

Evidence i think could be shown without giving away any people involved or methods, i think the u.s would profit by doing so, or creating ways in which to release evidence that is clear and concise and true. I would think the ability to do so would play a vital role in international image, and a domestic one at the same time. the other option is we get Colin Powell at the u.n repeating a line along with a black and white photo or two that cannot be backed up and is now making us look like bad guys.

I realize the following is probably just providing grist to the mill, but....

There is another possibly valid reason for failing to provide the evidence, or even negotiate with the Taliban. Say we produce the evidence, we get Bin Laden....then what? What real damage have we done to Al Queda? Would America be safer in this scenario, or more at risk? Are we even setting a good example allowing a government like the Taliban--already home to known terrorist training camps--to even enter into negotiations with us, or is this a bad precedent?

All I'm trying to point out here is that there were a variety of political and security issues at play, some of which might take precedence over legal issues. But I guess that very premise might be the topic for another thread.

That simply isn't true. Evidence could easily reveal a source indirectly. I wouldn't trust the Taliban government any further than I could throw a mountain, and I certainly wouldn't trust them with information that could very well identify a source. Perhaps you could give me an example of 'clear, concise, and true (and convincing)' evidence which would in no way reveal the person who obtained it. I can't think of a single even hypothetical example myself.

We did reveal our information to other (less corrupt and non-terrorist sponsoring) governments, who backed our decision. The change in policy you suggest would most certainly play a vital role in international image, though, as you said. No one in their right mind would work with us for intelligence.

Just having Bin Laden handed over to us would have done nothing in the long term. They would have just picked a new leader and started all over again. We need to do more than just grab him. We needed to terminate the group period. Tear down their leadership and cripple them. The only way we could do that is to take away their base of operations, teh regime that gave them that base, and bomb the crap out of the group.

My point exactly. The negotiations with the Taliban would have been less than meaningless--they actually would have detracted from our ability to solve the real problem (which was not Bin Laden, but rather Al Queda). I can't imagine a scenario in which negotiations would have done anything to disrupt Al Queda in a major way, and even starting the process would have done nothing but give Al Queda further time to react, or possibly plan and execute more attacks. This scenario just wasn't prudent to follow, and I think any administration in place would have seen that.

Al-Queda may be picking new leaders for certain divisions that have already experienced captures or killed, but that is small potatoes since we can just the new ones and kill them or capture them. It may sound like killing the former leaders was worthless but they could have been plotting new attacks, so their arrest stopped that.

First, this was not a matter of "negotiating" with the Taliban or anyone else. This was a matter of saying "Here's the evidence." Period. In the face of what must surely have been incontrovertible proof of the involvement of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, neither the Taliban nor anyone else would have had any comeback. Then we would have been wholly justified in taking the action we took.

While I can sympathize with the positions outlined by Mrs. P, Hobbes, and goamerica above (and I do), I am not convinced. I could also sympathize with someone who lost a close friend or relative during, say, the course of a bank robbery if he wanted to hunt the robbers down and shoot them in the face. But I could endorse neither. It would take a lot for me to support vigilantism - especially on a global scale. And, in the case of Afghanistan, it would be like the gentleman described above threatening to burn down the house where one of the robbers might be hiding out, regardless of the other lives which might be lost.

Vigilantism debases the individual or society which practices it - it is action based on bloodlust and frustration. It brings those who act the vigilante to the level of the criminal or the terrorist themselves. It is dehumanizing and dangerous. How much easier was it to aggressively invade Iraq having established the precedent of Afghanistan? How much easier again will the next target be - and the next? It is simply not behavior that I can countenance. It is not just illegal, it is unethical. The fact that it goes against one of the most basic things for which I believe America once stood just compounds the sin.

The United States was once a bastion of truth and justice. We have the potential to be a great civilizing force in the world. Over the past two years, however, we have responded to a heinous attack on our citizens with barbarism. To threaten a nation - any nation - with large-scale violence unless certain conditions are met without evidence that those conditions even should be met, is the act of a tyrant, a despot, an amoral war lord, not the act of an American President. Until now.

I, as a citizen of the United States of America, would like to know that when we began acting like barbarians we at least had real, sound reasons for doing so. If all we had was a likely suspicion of who was responsible - and a presumption of where the culprits might have been located a month later - that is simply not good enough. If we are to so thoroughly debase our country and its ideals, I would prefer not to take it on faith - or the word of any administration.

oh how very nobel. are you for real wertz? *as I smack my head continuously*

Vigilantism?
enlighten me as to HOW attacking al qaeda whose hijackers...all 19 of them members...whose principals operated primarily in afghanistan, whose head waterbuffalo is OBL...was vigilantism.

Barbarism? Tyrant, despot amoral warlord? interesting.

I am almost at a lost as to HOW to counter such hatred. The way you have described our action in afghanistan is nothing short of hatred of the resolve to eradicate the very terrorist organization responsible for 911 and the man behind that resolve.

If you would like some information regarding this benign or misunderstood or I don't know WHAT...organization called Al Qaeda and it's equally benign and misunderstood leader.

here, enjoy.

http://www.lib.ecu.edu/govdoc/terrorism.html

The Taliban was an organization that endorsed and trained terrorists. By doing so, they were the equivalent of a family ring of criminals. You don't offer the Godfather evidence of his son's wrongdoing, thus implicating the snitches and potentially (virtually inevitably) committing them and their families to death and torture.

The United States has the right and duty to defend its citizens against terrorists, and those that train, sponsor, and harbor them. The average citizen is not entitled to disclosure of classified information pertaining to national security interests.

Edited to add: I believe this is important. The Taliban was a 'government' in the loosest sense of the word. Under their authority, hands were wacked off in public squares, corpses hung and rotted from poles, playing music was against the law, schools were closed and white flags fluttered to mark the homes of virgins to be plucked by soldiers for forced marriage.

america should not find him in my opinion they should blow up thet whole country over there then they know they got him.........and the people over there ,a select few should be warnned and asked if they want to leave he deserves to die for what he has done to us.What ever it takes is what i say!

So, your suggestion is to nuke the country? Not a sound idea. That would just make the hatred towards us far worse than it already is

Odd, my first response would be that it is wrong to kill innocent people by the millions.

That was technically where i was getting at. The hatred would come from the killing of all those civilians

I would disagree with this series of events. Regardless of the evidence presented, I think the Taliban would have found some reason to delay taking any action. This is a process that could have been continued for quite some time. And during this delay, the terrorists would have had ample time to scatter and reform somewhere else.