Spin, Proof, and Media

bonkey

So,

the Taliban meet and secide that no proof of any description has been offered by the US, and therefore they cannot possibly hand over bin Laden.

Despite the (probably deserved) bad press the Taliban have been getting, this statement was, in fact, perfectly in keeping with international law. While that may have no bearing to the US who dont redognise the Taliban as the ruler's of Afghanistan, it does not mitigate the fact that their stance is reasonable 0 give us proof, and then we'll discuss things.

The US response to this was to say that they would not hand over any evidence, as this would only help the terrorists.

Now, at around the same time, there was huge coverage on CNN about arrests made in Hamburg, naming three suspected terrorists, giving details of where they lived, why officials were suspicious, and so on.

So - here's the thing...

The media attention appears to be focussed more on bin Laden than on Al Qaeda as a group. There is no information forthcoming in this arena. The Americans are positive that "he remains our prime suspect, beyond doubt", but will not discuss why. At the same time, the press have a field-day with "snippet" reporting on every related arrest, which includes details like why the arrest was made, what the police are doing to follow up, and so on.

Am I the only person this strikes as incresibly dumb?

The capture of the "field operative" terrorists is not important enough to withold information from the media - information which will definitely be of use to the terrorists.

The capture of one man, believed to be the mastermind, is important enough to not produce any evidence, and threaten invasion of a country on top of it. This evidence is so unusual that letting anyone know of it would somehow invalidate it, and allow bin Laden to escape justice?

This is magic evidence. So, if and when they capture bin Laden, could this evidence ever be presented publicly, as other terrorists would also be able to make use of it somehow?

Is this a pathetic justification for hte lack of evidence which is standing in the way of revenge? Or could it actually exist? Could there be sensitive evidence which cannot be revealed...perhaps its to do with some HumInt operatives who cannot be endangered, yet. If this is true, then surely the HumInt would have known about the attacks before the fact, and they could have been avoided.

Or maybe its all just spin.

And as a final thought...if the US do not recognise the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan, then who do they recognise? And why dont they get this person or body to authorise them to enter the country and search/remove bin Laden themselves?

jc

pepperkin

This exact angle has been driving me nuts, as well. Whether the US recognizes the Taliban or not, they ARE the ruling gov't, and have every right to request proof. So what is the problem?

So, what the hell is our esteemed *cough, choke* president up to?
As I described it recently...I feel like the US is driving a huge war tank...and my 3 yr old is at the wheel. He makes about as much sense as Dubyah does.

(BTW, yes, I am American, don't beat me up yet, wait until later.)

So where/what is this supposed proof that I seriously wonder whether or not even exists?

Incidentally Powell has been quoted as stating that "Soon the proof will be shown, that they're formulating the documents and preparing a public document" or something along those lines... We'll see. I for one would love to see this...

Hobbes

The Taliban are only reconised as the goverment of Afganistan by three other countries.

Pakistan is one, don't know who the other two are.

Manach

UAE & Saudi Arabai.
The UAE just recently ceased recogniation.
International law is a bit hazy about recognising what is a legimate government during a civil war.