>Whether or not you have any faith in the ability of the military/CIA to >carry out such a policy, would you consider an official change in >policy to >allow overt direct action against a person giving the order for the >use >of a >weapon of terror against your country, if you were in a position to >give >such an order? > >YES/NO <delete as appropriate> > >Back up your answer if you wish, but it's a simple yes or no. NO. What is the use of having such a stated policy? The supposed purpose would be to frighten any dictator who planned on using Weapons of Mass Destruction against the US. But come on, such a dictator with such a plan isn't going to be frightened by the mere stating of such a policy. He (This type is all "he"s) will expect such an action whethere it is the stated policy or not. Either he doesn't mind dying, or he figures the US couldn't do it if it wanted to, or he figures the US wouldn't really do it. Stating the policy isn't going to change a thing. And commiting to the policy means loud objections from the peace people...enough that perhaps we'd have to change the policy to the opposite. We are better off with an ambiguous policy. Every dictator knows that we might assassinate him if he attacks the US directly, he doesn't need to refer to Senate Resolution #0490125/b12. ===== Darryl Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
