A little off Topic Gambit, but with your logic in this specific Post , can we say that every country has a right to attack the other country who give Asylum to someone who did something bad ? for example the Baluch Terrorist Leaders were enjoying their lives in Switzerland and some other Western countries, so by this logic are we ( Pakistani's ) have the legitimate right to invade those lands, obliterate their population , disband their govt to install another , and than call the native people terrorist if they resist ?
A neutral country can in some cases allow soldiers from a warring party to make a short visit.
An example is the Graf Spee in Montevideo. It needed to leave after 1-2 days due to rules,
even thoigh it needed repairs to be battleworthy.
The devious Brits had some commercial ships leave the harbour a few times per day,
triggering a rule that a Germa ship must wait at least 12 hours, after an enemy commercial ship left.
If an military airplane crashes in a neutral country, the crew should be interned.
Failure to do so vilolates the Geneva and You can treat the country as an ally to the crew.
Presence of political leaders is not violating neutrality.
You can never legally obliterate purely civilian targets
Lets put this US thing aside ..
USA persuade OBL after the incident of 9/11, before he actually attack USA why you guys want him anyway ? and is it a bit odd that not very distant OBL was one of the foot fighter in Afghan Jihad which was run and controlled by US and allies ? so why US want OBL post 9/11 ( as you mentioned that US try to negotiate to get OBL ) and we all know that twin towers got hit in sept 2001, and US invaded the same year, which means few months ( if my memory works fine ) ..
now for Afghanistan to not follow the Geneva is it obvious ? Afghanistan was run by a Taliban govt which was not Accepted by the UN or any other country except few , than why you expect them to follow a Article ? are you saying that Americans did not know Afghanistan govt is not a legitimized Govt to begin with ? it was a law-less country run by Taliban and other parts controlled by War lords ?
OBL did not use Afghanistan to attack US , he use men from KSA and Egypt , and they might got training in Afghanistan but we all know many were already in US for quite sometime .. the only thing i see that Taliban refused to give OBL to you guys as you ask them too , and as Taliban spokesman said in a Interview that the evidence provided by USA is not enough , now if a country wants US to handover someone who is seeking Asylum in USA , and if they give evidence to you , your govt will not hand them over anyway .. is it truth ?
so America Invaded Afghanistan instead of Targeting OBL via drone or some targeted Operation ( US army is Mighty and can do it ) but they invaded the country which we all know how it turned out .. civilians got killed in cross fire and Air strikes that leads to more and more people picking up arms against a Foreign invaders .
the Baluch terrorist leaders are living in Switzerland, giving orders to their foot soldiers to attack Chinese and Pakistan labors , why we can not Nuke or Invade Switzerland and US can invade Afghanistan following up a person who attack and killed 3000+/- Civilians ?
Al Qaeda attacked US Embassies, and USS Cole way before 9/11 and bragged about it.
Mullah Omar choose to allow them to remain in Afghanistan, creating a legal reason
for the US to attack Afghanistan, within the limits if the Geneva Convention.
As the Taliban did not sign the Geneva Convention, You can argue they do not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention.
They can then be legally attacked
without a valid reason.
A more conventional view would be that
Afghanistan has signed the convention
and the Taliban are bound by that.
The US still has a valid reason.
If Baluch leaders sets up training camps for training troops in Switzerland, then
they are involved as a party.
You still can't nuke them, as that would most likely be considered to be unproportional.
Switzerland are an exceptionslly bad country to attack, because it is surrounded by countries,
which are neutral, and You have no right of fly-over to attack Switzerland.
ICBMs may be yoir only alternative, but without nukes, how effective will they be?
Be aware that the UN is working towards a ban of nuclear weapons.
Once implemented, use of nuclear weapons against a signee nation would most likely be
treated as a Crime against Humanity.
Use against a non-signee (Pakistan, China and India are not planning to sign) would still be legal,
but if a signee country sees fallout from an attack on a non-signee,
It is likely that they can prosecute attackers for Crime against Humanity.