In general, though, I dislike the rhetorical tactic of asserting something and insisting that other people have to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion.

Sure, if that person is asserting something not widely agreed upon. There was a major, published US investigation that concluded that bin Laden was behind 9/11, that being the 9/11 Commission Final Report. For heru-ur to come in here and claim there is nothing but CIA-trumped-up evidence linking OBL to 9/11 is simply ludicrous. In this case, I think it's he who should read up on the facts, not I who is obligated to provide sources that are such widely and routinely available.

So what would you do -- specifically -- under the scenario ... Nothing? -- GlennGreenwald

I would not use force. I would never use force except to fight on our own land in a defensive action.

Good grief. 9/11 happened in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia if I recall correctly.

I realized just now when I referred back to Glenn's hypo that I have only been making half the argument - namely that we'd be justified in taking OBL out of a noncompliant Pakistan solely on evidence that he was responsible for 9/11.

I completely forgot that Glenn also added that under this scenario we had evidence that OBL was actively planning future strikes against the US.

Good Lord, this is clearcut self-defense, in addition to serving the interests of justice, and I find it incomprehensible that any thinking adult could object to taking OBL without Pakistan's consent under these facts. (It would also be legal under US law, as per the AUMF.)

The notion that the US should not act as such lends some legitimacy to the wingnut taunt "surrender monkey." Thank God the current president's position, stated famously during his campaign, is that he would take action under such a scenario.

I had to leave the rendition discussion prematurely last night. Please pardon my bringing it up again...

heru-ur:

If you believe that the official version of the story is true, and that Bin Laden did it, and that we have a mountain of credible evidence: then why has there been no trial?

First of all, Glenn's hypothetical includes the supposition that we had evidence that OBL not only ordered 9/11 but was planning more attacks, so your tangent on alleged lack of evidence is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

That said, I have no idea why there has been no trial, other than a preference to not try him in absentia. There are already two open indictments against OBL (for the Kenya and Riyahd bombings) in US federal court, forming the legal basis for his extradition to this country, so I don't see the need for any other legal proceedings against the man until we have him.

But what you are saying is that a lack of an in absentia trial is some kind of proof that there is a grand international conspiracy, including three doctored video tapes that Al Jazeera was duped into broadcasting, to frame bin Laden for 9/11. I find that argument not credible, to say the least.

In fact, we have nothing but fake tapes and Bush Jr.'s word on it. I would require proof.

This is bordering on tin-hattery, if not full-blown detachment from reality. So you're saying there is a grand conspiracy that both the US and British goverments are perpetrating, and they have completely fooled all of the investigators and commissioners from the 9/11 Commission (unless you suppose they were in on it too), to make the world believe OBL ordered 9/11.

You say the tapes are fake. Where is your evidence? There are three tapes: one from 2004, and two from 2006. The CIA staged those? And fooled Al Jazeera into believing they are authentic?

Why?

Who did order 9/11, if not OBL?

You childlike belief in your leaders is duly noted, but it does not mean anything to me.

At this point in our conversation, I'm done except to note that you are asking me the same questions I have already answered, while you have avoided answering mine - most pertinently, what possible motive does the "central government" (oooh!) have to trump up a case against bin Laden? You are also missing a major point when you insist on "proof" before extradition when that is not the required standard. But anyway...

Did you get a chance to watch the Noam Chomsky video that Glenn posted a couple of weeks ago, regarding 9/11 conspiracies? Highly recommended, if you didn't see it.

I will leave you to ponder which is more "childish": to conclude based on all the available evidence that there is reason to believe OBL was behind 9/11, or this knee-jerk reaction that just because the government says something it must be false, to believe in a grand international conspiracy involving numerous governments and independent bodies to frame OBL for no articulable reason.