<HTML>Lets say Bin Laden follows this directive and leaves Afghanistan and then hands himself over to authorities in Pakistan. If he stands trial for the crimes he is purported to have committed (responsibility for the WTC bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Sudan, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen and the most recent terrorist attacks in the US) is there sufficient evidence that can link him specifically to them?
I'm not saying he wasn't responsible as it seems almost certain that he is the only person that could have organised and ordered these terrorist acts but currently we seem to have only circumstantial evidence to link him with any of them.
Okay I know he's as good as publicly admitted the embassy bombings but is that evidence even admissable to a court of law? Its not like its a signed confession is it? Can the CIA footage of hijacking suspects seen leaving a meeting with Bin Laden be accepted as evidence under international law? If he is tried for these crimes he will have as good a defence council as can be expected - just how likely is it that his involvement can be proven without written or audio records to implicate his guilt?
I suspect that Bin laden could have far more to gain by handing himself over now and the US backed coalition as much to lose. If he did I wonder if the attacks on Afghanistan would be cancelled or as is now being said they are suggesting there are additional objectives for the planned strike.
Any thoughts?
Duncan</HTML>
