mbs: I think you have slipped past the issue again. The point is *not* to suspend law for 'really bad' criminals. What's central here is the nature of the criminal and the crime. In this case, it's an army which enjoyed the shelter of an actual state with its own army, plus what is tantamount to a widely-dispersed network of soldier-terrorists. I don't see how a Gov could effectively combat this force by treating it as a collection of individuals with rights.
jks:I ran into Peter Railton, my old dissertation advisor, and he suggested the following point, invoking Rawls (_his_ old teacher) since we were talking about Rawls the other day. He said that in deciding what would be the ethical thing to do in the wake pf the 9/11 attack, we should imagine that wea re Luxenbourg, and lack B-52s, Army Rangers, aircraft carriers, "daisy cutters," and force projection abilities generally. Luxembourg would have to invoke international cooperation and treat the attack as a subject for criminal investigation. The fact that we have the military might doesn't mean that it's right to use it.
Btw, the defect with the argument goes to the heart of what I think is wrong with Rawls' original position approach. The fact is, that them as has got the force, will use it. Until it is taken away from them. jks
mbs: the fact that Luxembourg would be forced to rely on outside help of some type for protection doesn't mean that's right either. Ideally a just, benevolent, and all-powerful world authority would bring all the bad guys to justice with perfect fairness.