> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:43 AM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Preparations
> > >Should State-sponsored terrorism against another State be considered
> > >an act of war?
> >
> > My answer should be obvious from some of my earlier posts on the
> > subject.
>
> But, many times when I think your answer is obvious and respond to it,
> I apparently misunderstand you. So, let me ask this very clearly. If
> it clear that, Iraq and/or Afghanistan has aided in the attack on the
> US but it is also clear that the people who made the attack were not
> regular military, is the United States obliged to hold off until
> uniformed personal are used?
There is nothing to stop the US from gathering evidence and have a trial to
convict the terrorists (in their absence if necessary). You can ask the
country that harbours them to hand over the terrorists. If that fails, you
*could* consider going to war over it, but that would be subject to a
cost-benefit analysis (as explained in an other post).
> > >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.
>
> So, if I understand correctly from your other posts, if Iraq and
> Afghanistan were to support these attacks, our only legal an moral
> recourse is to convince them that they acted incorrectly. That we are
> obligated to refrain from any actions against the perpetrators of the
> actions until, the people who supported the actions agree to hand over
> the people that they support?
See above.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
