Arguments for ground war - forget it

[Brad DeLong]

>Max, "any steps" is one thing. War is another. Although my "score" 
>in the political attitudes test is in the middle of the libertarian 
>left, I am, as you know, on the "right" of the list, being an 
>unabashed bourgeois liberal democrat. But it is _because_ I am a 
>bourgeois liberal democrat that I have a fetishistic attachment to 
>the rule of law, due process, and that sort of tedious stuff. The T 
>offered to hand over try ObL if presented with evidence. We might 
>have called them on it, but no, Bush said, "Hand 'em over, we don't 
>negotiate, we know he's guilty." Maybe the T would have choked had 
>we offered evidence, we'll never know...

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as totally bizarre. The Taliban did 
not need to be convinced by evidence that Al-Qaeda was a terrorist 
organization that had carried out 9/11. They already knew deep within 
their bones that Al-Qaeda was a terrorist organization that had 
carried out 9/11.

Even more bizarre is the reference to "due process." How was one 
supposed to get the Taliban to respond to discovery requests? To 
submit to subpoenas?

Brad DeLong