If this sort of tactic is so good, why haven't the Israeli assinations brought peace?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 12:31:50PM -0500, Ken Hanly wrote:
> But when commandos enter terrorist training camps or whatever attempting to
> arrest suspected terrorists surely they are bound to encounter resistance.
> Are the commandos simply to surround a camp as police might surround a house
> and use tear gas or whatever to get them out. In a situation where the area
> is controlled by the Taliban or bin Laden supporters this is hardly an
> option.
> The other main reason I have for supporting limited intervention to
> "bring justice" to the terrorists is that this seems to be the minimal
> response politically possible, even if it is not desirable in the abstract.
> Should public opinion suddenly turn against Bush, he may be forced into
> dramatic and reckless action to placate the people and regain his
> popularity.
> I question the possibility of any terrorists getting a fair trial
> anywhere in the present climate of opinion. Neither bringing justice to the
> terrorists or the terrorists to justice will involve much justice. However,
> it may to a limited extentm but only if accompanied by a whole range of
> other policies, reduce the power of terrorism.
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at home.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Blair's evidence against Bin Laden
>
>
> >
> > From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> > > At 08:06 AM 10/5/01 -0700, Ian wrote:
> > > >Heaven forbid we should disagree and attempt to use collective
> > action
> > > >to thwart the will of Congress.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ian, you can do what you want. But it would be only fair if you &
> > Co. offer
> > > *your own* cheek to Mr. Bin Laden and his supporters. I'd rather be
> > safe
> > > than sorry - hence I support killing these folks by any means
> > necessary,
> > > even if evidence against them falls somewhat short of high legals
> > standards
> > > set by judicial purists. Better red than dead - remember that old
> > saying?
> > >
> > > wojtek
> >
> > ==============
> > No one is for offering their cheek to OBL and his supporters. The
> > notion that by killing off one network we're going to rid the US of
> > the biggest foreign policy crisis of the 21st century is a joke and if
> > we don't attempt to use, as we struggle to evolve, international legal
> > standards of due process etc. will simply repeat all the horrors of
> > the last century. Should the British Army simply go out and kill the
> > IRA, should Israel just continue to kill Palestinians, yaddah yaddah,
> > should "we" be Hobbesian cynics forever blissful in "our" cynicism? Do
> > we really want this century to produce as many weapons and weapons
> > lovers as last century?
> >
> > You're never safe.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > "Your tyranny I was part of is now cracking on every side and your
> > whole life is in danger your empire is on fire." [Front 242]
> >
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu