Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:20:30 -0500
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.
(((((((
CB: You don't produce a valid legal argument for punishing the whole "army" of Al Queda for September 11 events. At most only the leaders might be charged for conspiracy to commit murder, in the technical legal sense. The vast majority of Al Queda members would not have been involved in planning or conspiring to commit the Sept. 11 crime, and would not be culpable for it. Most of those legally culpable for September 11 crimes died on that day.
The U.S. attack on Afghanistan is definitely illegal pursuant to international law. The U.S. doesn't have the legal right to attack a country because it harbors criminals. This is outrageous from a legal standpoint.
The U.S. armed forces are more "terrorists" than Al Queda, if you do a body count. The legal category is "murder" not "terrorism". Timothy McVeigh was not convicted of "terrorism", but murder.