AT ABOUT 12:30 Sunday afternoon, America dropped bombs on the Taliban and entered a new phase in the fight against terrorism. While we have a very clear objective of stopping al-Qaida's violence, it's not entirely clear at what point we will think that we've accomplished it, and how we expect to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
It's possible that we won't capture bin Laden on our own but that instead the Taliban will be bombed into giving him up. But under what conditions? The American refusal to negotiate with the Taliban shouldn't exclude the possibility of trying bin Laden in an international court if it defuses the situation.
In the last few weeks, the Bush administration has done a pretty good job of laying out its case for bin Laden's guilt. Yet for reasons unknown to anybody except the Taliban, it is risking its own destruction to protect this man. The United States gave ample warning of what it expected, and while a precise deadline was not given for turning over bin Laden, saying that "time is running out" is a pretty clear statement.
With unknown motives, the Taliban offered last weekend to try bin Laden themselves in an Islamic court. The U.S. government was absolutely right to reject the idea, which would replace the possibility of American bias with almost certain radical Islamic bias. None of our allies, even those from Muslim states, have taken the bait, showing that they, too, see this as the ploy that it is. However, this doesn't mean that countries aren't uneasy about what happens after we get our hands on bin Laden.
Last week, when retaliation plans were obviously in the works, Iran's President Mohammad Khatami commented that the nation would support United Nations action to apprehend bin Laden, but not American "unilateral" action ("Behind Closed Doors, Iran Blames Bin Laden," The Washington Post, Oct. 6). Even though Iran would be happy to get rid of the Taliban, it doesn't want U.S. anger to run amuck in the region and cause unintended consequences.
Even though the United States has many allies behind what it is doing right now, the perception of fairness is important to ensure the success of our effort. Thus, despite the fact that Iran and other countries may be biased, the United States needs to address their concerns and be open to more than one solution.
It's true that bin Laden already has been indicted under earlier criminal charges and that the leaders who have seen our evidence generally have been satisfied that he was responsible for these events. However, the international community is not usually involved in bombing other countries just to satisfy a normal criminal trial.
NATO bombed Serbia to get their government to stop committing war crimes, and the world kept up sanctions with the goal of bringing in war criminals. Yet when these people were apprehended, they weren't tried by their victims, but by a U.N. judge in The Hague, the capital of the Netherlands.
There are several reasons why a similar plan might be a workable solution in this case. Iran has called an Islamic Council meeting for this week, which would consist of leaders from Muslim countries, to discuss the situation. They probably will issue further calls to bring the anti-terrorist effort under the auspices of the U.N. Agreeing to try bin Laden internationally would balance keeping our freedom to act while keeping other nations involved.
Even if these leaders are bluffing, letting the United Nations run the trial would be good public relations. It may sound cynical, but a successful war is about convincing other nations that you have acted effectively and justly. It is in our best interests to prove this to parts of the world that don't trust us.
Some might argue that agreeing to an international trial is a sign of weakness. Actually, the U.S. would be showing that we are so confident of our case that we are willing to place it before the eyes of the world. Precedent exists for this. When an airplane blew up in Lockerbie, Scotland, as a result of a terrorist attack, Scottish officials tried for years to get the Libyans to turn the guilty parties over without success. Eventually a proposal was put forward where the defendants would be tried in Scotland but under international supervision. In a situation where many other countries besides America lost people, an international trial for crimes against humanity may be the way to go.
If international trials would end the current situation and gain the U.S. more allies, our country should accept them. If doing things precisely our way and getting justice without a long battle become mutually exclusive, the U.S. must remember that justice is the most important.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at emanagan@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
