Max,
>mbs: those are Brad's words, but that aside, you are glossing
>over the difference between law enforcement and national defense,
>between crime-fighting and war. I think stipulating norms of due process
>etc. in a military situation defies practicality and is unreasonable on
>that account. I've said before that granting discretion to the big bad
>State is clearly risky, but I see no alternative. There is an obvious
>problem here in the U.S. detentions because the Bushies have an incentive
>to err on the side of caution, where caution is defined as the safety of
>anyone they haven't rounded up. Solutions that protect rights but also
>speak to the need to catch residual terrorist cells in the U.S. are what's
>needed, IMO.
You're calling this a war, but who are we at war with? How can the US declare war against al-Qaeda? I suppose it can say whatever it wants, but military action is always directed against cities, nations, armies, civilians - it can never simply target a terrorist cell. What we are dealing with is terrorists who are hiding in a foreign country, so we go to war with the country. I think that's a very bad principle. As others have mentioned, the US harbors terrorists of its own, and I doubt you would approve of the Cubans bombing Miami.
Besides, violence should be the last resort. As Justin said, we should have at least pursued the avenue of potential extradition of Osama by the Taliban. But we ruled that out, thereby assuring the comencement of B-52 sorties. It is those in favor of violence who have to justify their position, since non-violent solutions should always be preferred. I have yet to see such a justification of the bombing.
Brett