>I hear you, Justin, and I agree with the need for due process. IMHO,
>however, the attack had more of a military, or para-military, character
>than it did a criminal character. From what we know, they attacked an
>economic hub and a military base, and tried to attack a political
>headquarters. Taken together, those are military targets. Although no
>invasion of the US mainland is remotely credible, the opening salvo in
>some kind of war has been fired, I would argue.
There's an old Bloom County cartoon from the time of the Falklands war that
shows penguins talking to a soldier as bullets fly overhead. "Run, human!"
they say. "Someone is trying to kill you!" "It's war," saye the soldier.
"Oh, yes," the penguins say, "that explains it. It's war." But at least
uniformed soldiers are in a sense "signed on," and in some position to
defend themselves. What chills my blood, in part, is the casual acceptance
of the fact that in this "war," the US is going to kill a lot of absolutely
innocent Afghans who have manifestly had absolutely nothing to do with the
terrible crime at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (the latter was a clearly
military target, though the clerks and secretaries who dioed were no one's
idea of legitimate targets in a "war"). I have heard the phrase "collateral
damage" bantered about; the last time it was used it was from the lips of a
condemned terrorist (and yes, Brenda, he did it--he confessed), who was
properly reviled for his callousness. "It's war," so the Afghans who will
die shouldn't mind? Their families and friends wgould be outraged as were
the families and friends of the victims of Sept. 11? Come on, Andrew, you
are losing your humanity.
We have a horrendous crime. Civilized people would respond with a criminal
investigation. The war that is being foisted on us has nothing to do with
justice. It has nothing to do with stopping such acts, contrary to your
suggestion below. It guarantees that there will be more of them. By
generating more outrage due to hatred because of the "collateral damage," it
will recruit new terrorists. I do not say: do nothing. I say: use the
processes we have to investigate, capture, try, convict, and punish the
guilty. Let's not massacre the innocent because it provides emotional
gratification and political advantage.
>
>. If OBL was not the sponsor of
>Sept 11, he was still the sponsor of the attacks on the USS Cole and
>the African embassies. Capturing him will shorten the long list of
>suspects for Sept 11.
Let him be properly extradicted through the usual channels, then.
>
>My real concern is the possibility of a wider war. Bush keeps saying
>that we need to get OBL. That's a relatively short and easy mission if
>you throw enough military firepower at it. Even if the Taliban
>government must be deposed, that can be accomplished swiftly. The
>Taliban have little popular support. But then Bush keeps stressing the
>long nature of the conflict. One leak said it could go on for 10 years.
>There's an incongruity here.
That's just what the National Security State wants.
>
>Maybe he intends to depose the Taliban, and then re-stabilize the
>region somehow with the application of military force. That would
>indeed take many years, if it would be feasible at all.
Yeah, we're so good at that. Look at the great job we did in Iran and
Central America.
>This long-term view may be a strategic bluff by American military
>planners. If they convince al-Qaida that we will be persistent, they
>might give up or cease operations.
You must be kidding. These people are willing to die. Do you think they are
afraid of our bombs?
--jks
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
