> Your arguments are not internally consistent. You say on the one hand that you want the people responsible for this brought to justice, and yet on the other hand you argue *against* the one thing that has a real chance of doing just that--military action. I'd like to hear how you propose we bring bin Ladin to justice without going in and foricbly removing him from Afgahnistan. The Taliban will not extradite him. Their demands for "proof" of his involvement are merely a poor attempt to justify their willful disregard for international law and human rights. I am about 99.9% certain that no amount of proof we provide (and yes, Colin Powell has said we *will* be providing proof) will satisfy them. What then? Do we just say "Oh well, we tried" and leave it at that? No. We go in and we get him ourselves.


Here's an interesting point. Why is everyone assuming that bin Laden is still in Afghanistan? Think about it for a moment. How difficult would it be for him to sneak out by air to somewhere a long way away? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's by now long gone and hiding somewhere completely different, possibly with the aid of plastic surgery etc. Seems the smart thing if it's obvious that someone's coming to get you.

Zarn"Just a thought. You may draw your own conclusions"iwoop