... i would provide the taliban ... with the evidence. then, after they balk, i'd proceed with military action. but, i'd give them the chance.
Isn't that like having to show the punks with guns outside the crack house your evidence before you try to arrest the dealers inside? ;-)
Seriously, you're not far off, IMO. I'm happy to see Bush making the case to our allies and even to the UN, but the burden at this point is simply to have sufficient evidence to justify arrest. We don't have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The parallel in our justice system is an arrest warrant, which is substantially easier to get than a conviction. Police do not have to prove guilt to get one. Warrant in hand, authorities go to make the arrest. If the accused runs away, then chase him. If he or his protectors resist violently, then force is justified. Reasonable people would generally agree that an accused criminal who starts shooting at police has given up, at least until he surrenders, protections such as the presumption of innocence. If he gets shot, it's his own fault.
The Taliban apparently wants the trial before the arrest. Sorry, Omar, but that ain't how it works.
Bob
PS: Any evidence disclosures must be done in a way that our means of gathering the evidence or those who provide it are not endangered in the process. OIW, don't hinder our future intelligence gathering capabilities. |
