From: "Ken Hanly" <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca>
> 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.
=========
Agree it's not an option. This is one reason to argue for full press
coverage and all military filming of the action [there will be lots of
it, for sure] be made publicly available once the immediate crisis has
abated. Any defense that citizens should not be able to see it on
"national security" or "horrors of war" grounds are ridiculous after
anyone on the planet that has access to a tv saw 9-11. Panopticon has
it's uses for international law purposes.
> 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
============
Well, this is an intricate issue of whether the current situation affords the international community a foothold on learning our way out of the Hobbesian impasse or if the idea of justice in international relations and non-state actors engaged in violence is moot for all time and we should scrap usage of the concept in such contexts. Michael Pollack's suggesting that entangling the US state in multilateralism may help ensure the minimalist response is a damn good one, imo. Every effort should be made to avoid military mission creep because the spillover potential is enormous and frightening. Keeping the Machiavellian instincts of US diplomacy in check is critical to averting said mission creep.
Ian