5 ms·

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane in

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture? and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. In fact, let's take it even a step further in light of the fabrication of evidence seen in Iraq. The general atmosphere of hate at the time. not to mention that we now know that bin Laden not only was not tried but was thrown in a bag with the fish. How can we be so sure that he would have had received a fair trial? How would you even find an unbiased jury[1]? Do we deem it ok to extradite someone to a place with a high risk of torture and unfair trial? [1] - this is a rhetorical question but I'm actually curious how would one find such a jury that hasn't already made its mind?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. When you rule the way Taliban did the idea that you're not extraditing someone because you're worried about them getting hooked up to a car battery or beaten with a rubber hose is laughable.
prepend 5y ago
> and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. Maybe for blocking from the UK to US, but Afghanistan legally tortured/tortures so not sure why they would care about that regarding extradition.
midasuni 5y ago
If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.
  - jay3ss 5y ago
    Do you have a source for this? Sounds like an interesting read
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Someone else in the thread linked https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
      - jay3ss 5y ago
        Thanks!
  - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
    That was after the bombing had already begun and it had to be a "country that wouldn't come under US pressure". I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >country that wouldn't come under US pressure Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate. >I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh History has now shown the US was willing to torture people associated with al Qaeda, and execute Bin Laden then desecrate his corpse. They were absolutely right to distrust the US there.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. When you rule the way Taliban did the idea that you're not extraditing someone because you're worried about them getting hooked up to a car battery or beaten with a rubber hose is laughable.

prepend 5y ago

> and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition. Maybe for blocking from the UK to US, but Afghanistan legally tortured/tortures so not sure why they would care about that regarding extradition.

midasuni 5y ago

If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)

boomboomsubban 5y ago
The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.
- jay3ss 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Sounds like an interesting read
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Someone else in the thread linked https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
    - jay3ss 5y ago
      Thanks!
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  That was after the bombing had already begun and it had to be a "country that wouldn't come under US pressure". I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >country that wouldn't come under US pressure Given the context of also asking for bombing to stop, that seems like they were trying to stop the US from using military pressure to force their will on Afghanistan. The deal wasn't even considered, who knows what they were actually trying to negotiate. >I don't see what's so unreasonable about handing him over to the US tbh History has now shown the US was willing to torture people associated with al Qaeda, and execute Bin Laden then desecrate his corpse. They were absolutely right to distrust the US there.
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]