Anyone have a timeline on the Taliban and their offer to turn over OBL

[argyl]

to a third country? I recall this deal was offered to us and was obviously rejected.

Was this deal offered before or after 911? For that matter is this a true story or fabrication?

If we could have gotten OBL out of Afghanistan and into a foreign jail by this means it would have been worth it. As Bush hasn't seemed to care about OBL's whereabouts since several months after 911 until last night a jail cell would have certainly been preferable to him remaining free on the Afghan/Pakistani border.

After three years Bush is dragging out OBL and 911 to justify his preemptive war on Iraq. The public, if this knowledge was well known,would not be pleased that this SOB could have been captured with so little trouble and no loss of over 200 US forces.

But then we wouldn't have a toehold in a country so strategically placed for an overland pipeline to transport Central Asian oil to the ocean.

[Another Bill C.]

1. I'll have to look but

I think it was Sudan in 1998. At that time the offer fell through because a third country willing to cooperate couldn't be found. After a time OBL was released to Afghanistan.

I don't recall any offers from the Taliban.

[Kraklen]

3. No, that was that debunked Clinton myth.

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over in the weeks following 9-11, they were ignored.

[Kraklen]

2. You know, I doubt the Taliban had the slightest control...

over Osama bin Laden. He's old school mujhadeen. I doubt he'd submit to any sort of regional authority. The U.S. with all of its overwhelming forces and survellience couldn't find the guy, how were third world despots supposed to. Besides, the guy was probably in Pakistan by 9/12.

[Oversea Visitor]

4. And the Talibans

was the one that warn US and UK official that the Al qeada intent to attack them weeks before 911

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. For those naysayers, an article from Fox News (yuck)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36467,00.html

Taliban Cry Uncle, With Qualifications
Sunday, October 14, 2001

KABUL, Afghanistan — A senior Taliban official said Sunday that the ruling Afghan militia would discuss handing over Usama bin Laden to a third country if the U.S. and British bombing stopped — and if the U.S. revealed the proof it says it has of bin Laden's complicity in the terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., last month.

Within minutes, President Bush had refused the Taliban's offer.

"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt, we know he's guilty," Bush said at a Sunday afternoon press conference. "There's no negotiation. If they're interested in stopping military operations, they have to turn him over."

American officials have refused previous offers by the Taliban to negotiate, even though it has shared the evidence against bin Laden with other countries as part of coalition-building efforts. The U.S. has also ruled out bin Laden's handover to a third party.


continued at the above link

[punpirate]

6. For stuff like this...

... the very first place to check should be cooperativeresearch.org:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=bin+Laden+hand+over+third+country&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

Interesting set of articles placed in chronology. Pay particular attention to the Asia Times article dated 8/22/01.

Cheers.