> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:18 AM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Preparations
> >> >So, if a country only employed civilians to build and launch a
> >> >nuclear missle, it would not be an act of war?
> >
> >This point is moot. I *know* of no country that would only employ
> >civilians for this, and I do not think any country *would* leave it
> >to only civilians.
>
> Consider, however, this case. What of a country that employs civilians
> to kill thousands of civilians in another country. Even those people
> have engaged in a conscious, deliberate, and state-supported attempt
> to destroy the people and infrastructure of another country, do you
> still consider them non-military simply because they do not carry a
> military rank?
Yes. In this scenario, it would not be a military strike, but
state-sponsored terrorism.
> >>If it is demonstrated that military officials of Afghanistan or Iraq
> >>or both gave aid or comfort or both to the terrorists that
> >>implemented this attack, does that constitute an act of war?
No, because it was not the military that carried out the attack, but
terrorists.
> >No, because neither Afghanistan nor Iraq launched a military strike
> >against the US. Did you see Afghani or Iraqi troops, planes or other
> >signs of their presence in Manhattan or Washington? I certainly did
> >not.
>
> It depends on your definition of "troops." If you mean individuals
> acting with the support and funding of one country with the intent of
> killing the people and destroying the infrastructure of another
> country, then *yes*, I did.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I use the term "troops" in its most
common meaning of "military personnel". I did not see Afghani or Iraqi
military personnel in either Manhattan or Washington.
> >>What is the appropriate US response to the killing of thousands of
> >>civilians?
> >
> >The appropriate response would be the same as for any other crime:
> >find out which individuals are responsible, gather evidence, arrest
> >them, and give them a fair trial.
>
> Yes, but how do we do that if these individuals are acting with the
> support of another country? For example, the United States has a
> warrant for the rest of Osama bin Laden - for klling Americans at
> Khobar, Nairboi, Dar es Salaam, and at Aden. Yet, the government of
> Afghanistan has refused to give him up for trial.
Same procedure: find out which individuals are responsible, gather evidence,
arrest them (if possible) and give them a fair trial. If you failed to
arrest him because he was abroad, have a trial in his absence and ask the
government that harbours him to hand him over.
> Now, if I understand you correctly, you recommend that there was
> nothing the United States could do. Am I correct? Since Osama bin
> Laden is not a commissioned member of the Afghani military, the United
> States would *not* be justified in using missiles, aircraft, or special
> forces to apprehend Osama bin Laden within Afghanistan. Correct?
Correct. Doing so would mean starting a war to catch one man. That would be
comparable to blowing up your house to catch a mouse.
> Of course, doing nothing(1) has allowed Osama bin Laden to continue to
> act with the support of the Afghani and Iraqi governments to kill over
> *five*thousand* innocent Americans, and destroy *tens*of*billions*
> worth of US property.
>
> So what now, Jeroen, we again do nothing? What if next time it is a
> mushroom cloud over Manhattan? What then? Still nothing?
As a civilised nation, the proper way with dealing with that would be the
procedure I mentioned earlier (find the terrorists, arrest them, put them on
trial, convict them). If you cannot actually catch the criminals (or have
them handed over by whatever country harbours them), you will have to start
a war against that country in order to catch the terrorists.
This is basically a cost-benefit analysis: is the damage done (both in
people killed, and in damage to infrastructure) high enough to validate
going to war? Is the damage high enough to spend huge amounts of money on a
military action, and risk the lives of your own troops?
If a few people get killed by a car bomb, the answer would almost certainly
be "no". In the case of the WTC/Pentagon attack, it is a maybe. In the case
of a nuclear attack, the answer will almost certainly be "yes".
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
