[iwar] [fc:Wanted:.Dead.Or.Alive?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-15 09:22:15

Next message: Tony Bartoletti: "Re: [iwar] [fc:House.panel.bravely.thwarts.terrorists-.by.banning.Net-gambling]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:War.Prompts.Pentagon.Review.Of.Industry.Shows]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Message-Id: <200110151622.JAA08533@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Wanted:.Dead.Or.Alive?]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

National Journal
October 13, 2001
Wanted: Dead Or Alive?
By Shawn Zeller
Dead or alive? On September 17, President Bush said the United States would
take terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, one way or the other. But the
President didn't express a preference. 
With U.S. bombs falling over Afghanistan and a widespread assumption that
ground forces will enter the country shortly, the United States will
ultimately have to make a choice. Do we in fact want bin Laden dead? Or do
we want him alive? 
The issue is already a subject of some heated debate among foreign-policy
and legal experts, who see pluses and minuses with either approach. 
A trial of bin Laden, according to some of these experts, would enable the
United States to prove its case to the entire world -- presuming that the
government has evidence to make its case successfully -- and would
legitimize the current war effort. "It would be the moral high road," says
M. Cherif Bassiouni, a law professor at DePaul University and former
chairman of the United Nations commission that investigated war crimes in
Yugoslavia. 
By killing bin Laden, however, the United States would avoid all the risks
of a trial: the revelation of intelligence sources and the methods used to
recruit them; the threat of further terrorist strikes aimed at forcing bin
Laden's release; and -- of course -- the possibility that bin Laden would
walk free. 
After weeks of Taliban intransigence, it seems unlikely that the regime in
Afghanistan would turn bin Laden over to U.S. forces. And after bin Laden
sent a defiant videotaped message to an Arab television network on October
6, it seems equally unlikely that he will surrender. If he were turned over,
or did surrender, international law would oblige the United States to try
him as a prisoner of war. On the other hand, the United States is not
obliged under international laws governing war to make any effort to capture
him. The United States can legally seek to kill bin Laden in his hideout, a
tactic that would lessen the risk of harm to American troops. Sending a
missile into his bunker would be easier than taking him alive. 
Another downside to a trial would be the platform it might give bin Laden to
recruit new volunteers to his anti-American jihad. That would hardly be
unprecedented. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in 1995 of
conspiring to blow up major buildings and infrastructure in New York City,
delivered at his trial a 100-minute speech labeling the United States an
enemy of Islam and claiming a place among the martyrs (even though Abdel
Rahman was sentenced to life in prison, not death). 
Even so, "making the case [against bin Laden] for history would be positive
for U.S. foreign relations," says Bartram Brown, a professor at Chicago-Kent
College of Law and a participant in the creation of the International
Criminal Court. "If you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the world and
public opinion, and particularly to the non-American and Islamic world, that
this is a bad person who did bad things, that helps prove that we are after
terrorists and not against the Muslim countries." 
Still, Brown warns, a trial runs its own risks. "We would have to meet all
the standards of U.S. law, and you need pretty good evidence to get a
conviction in this country. Plus, the kind of evidence we have is difficult
to bring up in court, because it raises questions of sources and methods.
And if we don't want to reveal those sources, it raises questions of due
process." 
In addition, Brown says the United States would undoubtedly seek the death
penalty, which could alienate its European allies. 
Last July, a New York jury deadlocked on whether or not to give the death
penalty to terrorists convicted of perpetrating the 1998 bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. As a result, the terrorists were given life
sentences. The jury forewoman said at the time that several jurors did not
want any terrorist to be seen as "a martyr," so that "his death may be
exploited by others to justify future terrorist acts." 
But putting bin Laden in prison for life could provoke his allies to strike
back, says Purdue University political scientist Louis Rene Beres. "There
would be a whole new wave of violence." He points to the killing of 11
Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich by terrorists
affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO terrorists
demanded the release of 234 Arab and German prisoners then being held in
Israel and West Germany. "That's when Israel was trying to be nice and put
terrorists in jail," says Beres. 
The United States shouldn't even think of making the same mistake, Beres
says. "The clear answer is to kill bin Laden in his place." 

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Next message: Tony Bartoletti: "Re: [iwar] [fc:House.panel.bravely.thwarts.terrorists-.by.banning.Net-gambling]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:War.Prompts.Pentagon.Review.Of.Industry.Shows]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:55 PST