Whole 'nother kettle of fish. I was responding to the notion that OBL didn't deserve due process - that the US has the right to just kill him because we feel like it - which I don't agree with. If GWB had had any sense he'd have kept the goodwill that radiated our way after 9/11 captured OBL AS he promised, and brought charges with the consent of the UN.
I'd have to go looking, but I *do* (usual list caveat - don't have the citation at hand, so I'm not hanging my argument on it yet) think there's a tape of OBL claiming credit for 9/11 - which I think would suffice. As to the US and the ICC - well, we only want it applied to other countries. And I think GWB has managed to isolate the US from the entire world. I also can't say the US hasn't broken just about every convention there is. There's a piece in this week's Washington Post arguing that OBL has already won; the US just hasn't realized it yet. More later - have to go work. Keith Addison wrote: >Hi Mike and all > > > >>> The Jihad that would have come from 'taking Osama' would have >>> rivaled 9/11 several times over. Real Presidents weigh perceived >>> costs versus gains withe information available.*>>Maybe yes, maybe >>> no. Clinton had no intention of taking OBL because he wanted him >>> prosecuted in the criminal justice system because like other >>> Liberals he considered OBL to be a criminal.<<* >>> >>> >>> >>Which is still what he is. >> >> > >What has he been convicted of? What is he charged with? Charges >levelled against him do not make him a criminal until/unless he is >convicted; until then he is presumed innocent. If such charges are >levelled by the US, then it should be noted that the US is guilty of >the illegal invasion of a sovereign state and of many other ongoing >infringements of the Geneva Convention, and is in fact an >international criminal. Can criminal charges brought by a criminal >have any credibility? It seems that in the world at large Osama bin >Laden has more credibility and commands more respect than does the >US, especially "Washington" - very large numbers of people see the US >as a criminal but they don't see Bin Laden as a criminal. Those who >think this way have a point: they see Bin Laden as a master >strategist who makes his all-powerful enemies do whatever he wants >them to. Kind of hard to argue against that. AND HE DOESN'T TELL LIES. > >Best > >Keith > > > > >>Where's your point? >> >> >> >>> Pretend Presidents declare war on nouns.*>>You forgot >>> aspirin/ibuprofen/acetometephine factories & empty buildings.<<* >>> >>> On 9/10/06, *Gregg Davidson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not upset. I know that Clinton wouldn't take Osama on a >>> silver platter 3 times. The atack may have come come on Bush's >>> watch, but the inaction came on Clinton's, the first WTC >>> bombing, Simalia, the USS Cole. I'm sure there is more than >>> that. >>> >>> The Dems/Libs would try the same thing if God Himself told >>> what happened. >>> >>> >>> */DHAJOGLO < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>/* >>> wrote: >>> >>> Gregg, >>> I don't mean to get you too upset. But, hypocracy runs >>> thick when it comes to this mini-series. I don't doubt >>> that Clinton's administration could have done things >>> differently but remember, the attack came on BushCo's >>> watch and the seeds were planted over several years. >>> >>> On Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:28 PM, Gregg Davidson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Bush Lied! Bush Lied!! Bush Lied!!! Can't you people come >>>> >>>> >>> up with something better than that? >>> >>> Its interesting, they impeached Clinton for a lie. The >>> country was outraged at such an atrocity as a lie to the >>> nation. Would you suggest a lie about illicit sex is worse >>> then a lie that has led to the deaths of the US's service >>> men and women? Or a lie about why 3000 people lost their >>> lives in 9/11? >>> >>> >>> >>>>I'm so sorry we pissed off "Uncle" Osama. We'd better not >>>> >>>> >>> make him mad or he'll do some really mean like call the >>> ACLU on us. >>> >>> Hey, I would love to see Osama captured. But blaming his >>> actions on one presidency only serves those who would hide >>> from the truth. And my suggestion that Clinton was no more >>> at fault then the two presidents previous to him (not even >>> including Eisenhower's successful attempt at destabilizing >>> Iran) still stands. Thus, to propagate a story that places >>> blame for 9/11 at the feet of the Clinton administration >>> is not only unfair but down right unpatriotic and >>> un-American. Its deplorable to those who suffered loss to >>> lie about why and how it happened. >>> >>> -dave >>> >>> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
