A case of self protection
For example, if an American were alleged to have trafficked drugs in Malaysia, wouldn't he be tried here according to our laws which trigger the death penalty or are we supposed to allow him to be tried in America where the jurisprudence is different?
Even the Taliban observe this principle. When they accuse a journalist of spying, do they try him in Afghanistan or send him back to his country of origin to be tried?
Likewise, when the alleged acts of terrorism were committed in US soil, the US would not allow Osama to be tried in an Islamic court in another Islamic country of a different jurisprudence by which (for example) guilt from American perspectives could never be established if (say) the acts of terrorism have to be witnessed by four eye witnesses in order to be proven.
This answers the writer's objection to American demand that Osama be handed over.
The above concerns the issue of proof of Osama's guilt in direct relation to the terrorist acts of Sept 11 which can only be tendered if he were first handed over to America for trial under her laws.
But there is another separate and equally pertinent issue - self defence against future strikes - that I next address.
Supposing Osama was not responsible directly for what the suicide bombers did.
Supposing he had no idea at all that they were going to crash the planes into American targets on Sept 11.
However, he openly endorsed their actions in the aftermath as those belonging to 'vanguard Muslims' carrying his call for jihad declared against the US at least two years ago.
Supposing the 'vanguard Muslims' as described by Osama were truly inspired by Osama and the Al-Qaeda mission.
Supposing there are many others throughout the world not personally known to Osama but who consider him as a true Muslim warrior and would answer his call for further strikes against the US by whatever means on their own.
Doesn't the writer consider that under such circumstances the US has a right of preventive self- defence and protection against future and further strikes to retaliate and take out Osama as a symbol and inciter of hatred against her? Wouldn't the US be justified to think in self protection that if the main symbol and inciter in the person of Osama is removed, her risks of being attacked in the future will be substantially mitigated?
If Osama incites others to strike at the US, and others so influenced by, and acting on his incitement based on exploitation of religion actually carry out the terrorist attacks, even if Osama has no prior personal knowledge of the identities of such others or that their terrorist acts were about to be carried out, wouldn't that still make Osama, as inciter, just as responsible for and guilty as those who perpetrated the acts? Isn't it foreseeable on his part that others will do what he advocates on the promise of martyrdom?
If Osama, as inciter, is responsible and guilty based on the above reasons, wouldn't the Taliban who harbour him and his organisation, likewise, be considered abetting his continuous threat to US security and, therefore, just as responsible and deserving of US retaliatory strikes?
The writer raises the analogy of family in respect of 7.5 million members starving and dying every day which American bombing aggravate.
Is it a united family of Muslims?
This is not true. In the first place, the Taliban were fighting the forces of Northern Alliance who were their Muslim enemies. Secondly, the Taliban usurped power; they were not elected in by a majority of Afghans, which is why their administration is not recognised by the rest of the countries in the world including Muslim nations with the exception of Pakistan. Thirdly, the dying and starving were present even before Sept 11, had nothing to do with American strikes, and might well have been attributable to the Taliban misrule.
In light of these stark facts, why is the writer still in sympathy with Osama and the Taliban?
