[pydry]

The caveats were exactly as I described and were entirely reasonable, but the US had a hard on for a military invasion and was not about to be stopped by such a trivial thing as due process.

Your idea that he should be handed over without question for trial does not follow any legal logic but is simply the logic of an imperialist.

The same logic is what led to the Hague invasion act, Guantanamo bay, the imperialist invasion of Iraq and, of course, the various attempts to push NATO further and further up against the more vulnerable parts of the Russian border.

As I said before, a Putin supporter would have broadly similar views to you - in reverse.

[_djo_]

Again, that’s quite absurd. You’re acting as though Bin Laden was solely responsible for the attack, rather than being the head of an organisation that carried it out.

Afghanistan under the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda, protecting it, supporting it, and refusing to dismantle it when it attacked the US. It was in all the ways that matter basically part of the government. Under international law this means that they were responsible for its actions and therefore that the attack on the US was effectively an attack from Afghanistan. This is ‘due process’ at the international level.

Given this, international law is extremely clear on the rights of self defence in response to an attack. There’s no requirement to merely put the leader on trial in a third country, because everybody involved in drafting these conventions and treaties knew that would be nuts, would not achieve security, and would be unenforceable.

So, no. These are not ‘imperialist’ views, they’re ones any scholar of international law would describe in the same way. The US was fully justified in attacking Afghanistan and dismantling the threat from Al-Qaeda under international law.