Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:18:07 +0100 From: Paul Robinson <paul@akita.co.uk> To: Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org> Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <20010922121807.C55559@jake.akitanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAAEEFCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org>; from deuce@lordlegacy.org on Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 02:30:10AM -0600 References: <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAAEEFCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 22, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org> wrote:
> Jury of their peers... sorry to slap that one in there, I actually HAVE been
> seeing similar statements, but are they any more likely to come to a fair,
> impartial decision as a jusy chosen from a country that has been screming for
> his blood for the last few years?
An agrument used by various Nazi war criminals over the years. In that case,
the only people who would qualify to be judge and jury would be the Swiss
who historically are on everybody's side at the same time whilst maintaining
they aren't on anybody's side. The US really wouldn't like a country where
all motor sport is illegal and every male adult is a member of the army
(sounds almost Taliban-ish), to take over the running of this though. :-)
> > You'll have to pick a different example; the U.S. and the U.K.
> > have extradition treaties which would preclude this happening;
The UK pleaded that certain (for here, unnamed) individuals shouls not be
permitted into the US to raise funds to buy weaponry, but the US made sure
that the entry visas got the President's very own approval. I see what
you're saying though.
> > it was, in fact, these treaties which allowed the U.S. to take
> > custody of the Osama bin Laden sponsored terrorist responsible
> > for the bombing of the Pan Am jetliner over Lacherby Scotland,
Sorry, this might seem like nit-picking but that should be 'Lockerbie'
> I would be perfectly happy with generalizations and data that would not
> compromise U.S. Intelligence assests. If the head of the CIA comes out and
> says "A source in Bin Ladens camp has been told by someone close to Bin Laden
> that Bin Laden did in fact organise the attack" I don't think that would
> compromise anyone or anything. But they don't say that. What Rumsfeld says
> is:
That would compromise the US' source, and he would most likely be killed
very quickly.
> What it boils down to is "Afghanistan is first" I've spend the last hour
> looking for any press statement even saying that the government posses proof
> that bin laden was responsible... I couldn't find a single one. Now I don't
> think "We posess proof that it was bin laden... no further comment" would
> compromise any U.S. Intelligence assets, or any others countries assets
> either.
It would actually. It compromises lots of detection methods, individuals and
at the end of the day, if they said "we have proof but we're not telling you
what it is" you either wouldn't believe them or would want the proof made
public - i.e. your next question would be 'prove you have proof'. That
causes problems.
> If Afghanistan does NOT attack the US troops, they are then NOT protecting bin
> laden and his troops. With their army and their internal problems, I would be
> hesitant to try to go in, capture bin laden, and hand him over to the United
> States government.
If you saw a bunch of special commandos heading into your town, and you know
their job is to kill you, do you not think you might want to at least defend
yourself?
--
Paul Robinson ,---------------------------------------
Technical Director @ Akita | A computer lets you make more mistakes
PO Box 604, Manchester, M60 3PR | than any other invention with the
T: +44 (0) 161 228 6388 (F:6389)| possible exceptions of handguns and
| Tequila - Mitch Ratcliffe
`-----
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010922121807.C55559>