[P-ala-din]

> 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?

[midasuni]

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]

The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.

[bettysdiagnose]

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]

>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.

[dd444fgdfg]

Burial at sea. I'm not even convinced they killed him at the time.

[bettysdiagnose]

Yeah and the Taliban were willing to protect the guy who committed one of the worst terrorist atrocities in memory. Funny how it's totally understandable according to you why the Taliban wouldn't trust America, but somehow America isn't afford the same understanding by people like you.... Utterly transparent from you I'm afraid.

[hiyer]

Pakistan was willing to protect him too (that's where he was found at the end) but the US didn't invade them. Why is that? Because Pakistan has nukes?

[boomboomsubban]

If Afghanistan trusted the US and the US proceeded to torture and execute Bin Laden, they would have no recourse. If the US trusted Afghanistan and Afghanistan proceeded to not cooperate then the US could then start the invasion.

Afghanistan wasn't more trustworthy, the amount of trust necessary was far lower.

I think that addresses your accusation. I barely understand what you consider "utterly transparent" in my comment.

[jay3ss]

Do you have a source for this? Sounds like an interesting read

[boomboomsubban]

Someone else in the thread linked https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...

[jay3ss]

Thanks!

[prepend]

> 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.

[throwaway0a5e]

>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.