Stardate 20011108.0805 (On Screen): The Guardian seems to think there is a dilemma facing the US and UK: if we do capture bin Laden or other top members of al Qaeda and decide to put them on trial, where and how? To hear the Guardian tell it, our top leaders are spending all their time worrying about this issue. (Evidently it's more important than things like "winning the war" and "working on the recession".) I think that the Guardian is doing some projecting here, and I seriously doubt that there is any major concern about this in Washington, at least.
If (and it's a big "if") we capture bin Laden, he'll be tried in the United States.
There is no way that the people of the US will accept having him be tried by an international tribunal in Europe. That's the irreducible political fact. It runs against the grain. The "crime" was committed here, and we're going to be the ones who try and punish him. Partly that's because of a long-standing tradition among Americans not to force anyone else to do our dirty work, but also because of a not inconsiderable suspicion that if he were tried in Europe he wouldn't get a full measure of justice, i.e. that they wouldn't execute him if he was convicted. If McVeigh used to be the pro-death-penalty's poster child, bin Laden will soon replace him on the posters; there is no way that Americans will settle for less than the death penalty. Given the strong and vocal criticism for capital punishment by Europe in the last couple of years, there's no chance that Americans will accept a trial there. (discussion in progress)
