The author of the letter 'Choosing between your guest and the bully' (Oct 27) was clearly wrong about one thing. In his second paragraph he wrote "if ever one cares to observe the unfolding of the current conflict, one of the things that stood out is the fact that the Taliban never refused to hand over Osama bin Laden".

In fact on Sept 30 the Taliban did refuse to hand over Osama. Mulla Abdul Zaeef, Taliban chief representative in Islamabad, told reporters, "I want to make once again categorically that Osama bin Laden will not be handed over to anyone".

However, I agree with the author's general point that ideally Osama should be brought to justice in a court of law, not on a battlefield. That way, I believe, the Muslim world would have an opportunity to hear the evidence against him, decide fairly whether he is guilty or to support him.

There are, however, important problems with a court-administered solution that the author ignores.

Among the Taliban's conditions for releasing Osama were that he (Osama) would have the right to choose when and where his trial would be held.

Suppose Osama actually is the leader of a worldwide terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of America.

As both sides negotiate a location for his trial, prepare evidence, locate witnesses and deal with security and political issues, a process that could take months, Osama's followers would have an opportunity to continue to wreck havoc in America and around the world. Their next big event might be exploding a nuclear bomb in the middle of Washington DC - or even Kuala Lumpur.

The author of the article asks if we have even the "slightest doubt" that Osama was behind the Sept 11 attacks. I admit that none of us can be sure about Osama's guilt. But we know he said the following regarding the Sept 11 attack: "There is America, hit by God in one of its softest spots. Its greatest buildings were destroyed, thank God for that. There is America, full of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that."

The author claims that the US was unfair to insist on a US trial for Osama because "the attacks had also claimed the lives of many citizens of other countries as well".

Following this logic, should the eight foreign Christian aid workers accused by the Taliban of a 'crime' in promoting Christianity in Afghanistan be tried not in Afghanistan but in a country of their own choosing by a Christian court?

Since when are countries obliged to submit to an international court for crimes committed within their own borders?

A more important consideration is whether the Sept 11 attacks were criminal acts by individuals or acts of war by a foreign power. If Osama was involved, then the government of Afghanistan shares his guilt, since for years it has supported him. Courts of law, secular or Islamic, do not adjudicate acts of war.

The author portrays the US as a neighbourhood bully that is terrorising Osama, an innocent "house guest" of the people of Afghanistan. I wonder if the author has forgotten that the US was struck first and this threatening statement was issued by the "houseguest" after the Sept 11 attacks.

I hope we can find an alternative to war. But given the Taliban's complicity and the danger Osama's organisation poses to the world, a trial is probably the wrong solution.