[JustHalf]

Bonkey, you should probably edit your post so that others can reply easily. I hit quote and it only grabbed the last bit!

Anyway, now for some manual quoting...

Originally posted by bonkey
Pretty much all of it is background information, indicating the motive. Most of the rest is circumstantial - something which would never get a conviction in a civilian court of law in the US (which, however, *would* get a conviction in a military court where the onus of proof is apparently lessened).

I think it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that bin Laden is a very, very evil man; who had the motivation and means to carry out the attacks. The evidence linking him directly to the attacks, however, is only referred to, and not given.

Originally posted by bonkey
Which, of course, is all covered nicely by the lead-ion comment of "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources ". In other words - we may have evidence, but we cant use it. Now, the simple fact is that if you cant use evidence, it effectively doesnt exist. The whole legal process is set up in order to try and ensure a fair process.

I agree, though I am sure that sources can still be protected while revealing evidence to a jury.

Originally posted by bonkey
One comment which really interested me was "6. Al-Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies, including the United Kingdom". First of all, this has nothing to do with the attacks themselves, and is more a case of showing that these people are so dangerous that we have to go after them anyway. It has nothing to do with the case in hand. It also belies the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda - which has been a persistent thread on these boards and in the media.

How does it belie the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda?

Originally posted by bonkey
Now - lets be honest here. I believe Al Qaeda is guilty of carrying out these attacks. With any officially recognised government or military, the highest person in command is always held accountable for atrocities, or accountable for fross negligence if they were not aware of the atrocities. For these reasons, Osama could be held accountable. However, the doc which linked to is nothing more than media appeasement for those protesting the wrongness of the current actions, and pretty poor spin at that.

I disagree.

Originally posted by bonkey
It shows motive. It shows similarities in methodology. It fails to offer proof. More correctly, it specifically refuses to offer proof.

But at least gives a reason for doing so (whether you agree with it or not)

[bonkey]

Originally posted by JustHalf
Bonkey, you should probably edit your post so that others can reply easily. I hit quote and it only grabbed the last bit!

Apologies. /me has cleaned up the post.

I agree, though I am sure that sources can still be protected while revealing evidence to a jury.

You see, this is the stem of the matter. The US has consistently taken the line that the evidence itself would reveal information about the methods and/or technology available to them for evidence gathering, which they are not willing to compromise.

Whether or not we believe that they have the evidence, we should not allow the legal system to be corrupted to the extent that is being done here. The US want to be able to try bin Laden *and other foreign nationals* in a closed military court. This is such a dangerous precedent, I dont even know where to start.

I mean - how long before any foreign national suspected of terrorist-related crimes can be held indefinitely without charging, and then tried in a closed session with no course to appeal. IIRC, all of the legislation to enable this has already been proposed and/or passed.

Then, how soon before an American stands suspected of terrorist activities, and the rules change so that all terrorist suspects can be held indefinitely without charge, and then tried in a closed session with no course to appeal.

America, for better or for worse (a bit of both, I think) is the protector of the Western World in a lot of respects. More correctly, protects the western world's way of life by ensuring that activities throughout the rest of the world do not threaten this. To be honest, I wouldnt have a huge problem with that, were it done in a proper manner. What I do have a problem with is that the protector should be forced to maintain the principles it is trying to uphold.

Basically, bin Laden is almost definitely guilty. However, if he is denied his rights under the judicial system, then the price of "freeing the world from terrorism" will be the abandonment of justice.

jc