[P-ala-din]

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism

If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture? and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition.

In fact, let's take it even a step further in light of the fabrication of evidence seen in Iraq. The general atmosphere of hate at the time. not to mention that we now know that bin Laden not only was not tried but was thrown in a bag with the fish. How can we be so sure that he would have had received a fair trial? How would you even find an unbiased jury[1]?

Do we deem it ok to extradite someone to a place with a high risk of torture and unfair trial?

[1] - this is a rhetorical question but I'm actually curious how would one find such a jury that hasn't already made its mind?

[midasuni]

If that were the real situation then the taliban could have taken Bin Laden into custody and hand him over for trial in a neutral country (say the Netherlands alike Lockerbie trial, or somewhere like China or India)

[boomboomsubban]

The Taliban offered to cooperate in turning Bin Laden over to another country. The US refused.

[prepend]

> and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition.

Maybe for blocking from the UK to US, but Afghanistan legally tortured/tortures so not sure why they would care about that regarding extradition.

[throwaway0a5e]

>and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition.

When you rule the way Taliban did the idea that you're not extraditing someone because you're worried about them getting hooked up to a car battery or beaten with a rubber hose is laughable.